Wikipedia

Talk:Creation Museum/Archive 3

< Talk:Creation Museum
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Acdixon in topic Some comments
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 7

Accreditation: Does the lack of accreditation warrant mention in the Article?

Latest comment: 11 years ago83 comments16 people in discussion

Survey

  • Irrelevant - Without a WP:RS stating why it is not accredited and that the lack of accreditation is relevant, it is not relevantReformedArsenal (talk) 17:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Conditional Not relevant Unless someone can cite a number of other non-accredited museum articles where the lack of accreditation is mentioned (or establish that there are no museum articles on non-accredited museums), mentioning lack of accreditation seems like unfair treatment to denigrate this one. Plazak (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Needs context That the museum is not accredited is indisputable. Stating this without context, however, leaves the reader (at least one unfamiliar with museum accreditation, like myself) with questions. What does it mean that it isn't accredited? In U.S. higher education, a field I am familiar with, being unaccredited is a huge deal. Most schools won't take your coursework in transfer, you don't qualify for a lot of grants, degrees you issue aren't recognized a lot of places. Is being an unaccredited museum like that? Or is it more like a historic site that isn't listed on the National Register of Historic Places? Not being on the NRHP doesn't really undermine a place's historical value that much, but being an unaccredited college is usually assumed to hurt its academic reputation. If we're going to include the fact of non-accreditation, we need to know which scenario this is closer to (as documented in a secondary source). As other posters have pointed out, it would also be helpful to know why they aren't accredited. Did they apply and were rejected? Is it too expensive? Are the benefits of accreditation just not that important, so they didn't apply at all? To me, without this context, the bare fact implies a pretty negative connotation that may or may not be warranted. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Needs context, per Acdixon. I agree with everything that Acdixon said, and I'll add that it also makes a big difference how we present the information. On the one hand, an explanation with the proper context and subject to due weight may be very helpful. On the other hand, simply pointing it out without context ends up being editorializing in Wikipedia's voice. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Per the source information I've provided below, I have low enthusiasm for simply calling the museum "unaccredited" in Wikipedia's voice, but I support a paragraph lower on the page, containing both the position of the accrediting organization, and also Ken Ham's response to it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Conditional Irrelevant - Without a WP:RS giving clear context why it is not accredited, and that there is relevance to accreditation that is of consequence to the CM, it is superfluous to the article.--Lyonscc (talk) 03:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Irrelevant. Nothing that has been posted here has come close to demonstrating the relevance of the lack of accreditation. We should certainly include criticism of the CM, and that might include a person's opinion about the CM not deserving to be accredited, but only if the criticism has been reported in secondary sources. StAnselm (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Irrelevant. There is no requirement for a museum to be accredited. Additionally, since the content is contrary to the science establishment who'd likely handle said accreditation, it seems a bit illogical to expect them to have it. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually, I don't base my position on it. I included it as a factor. I won't argue that they're not out of the mainstream of science, but calling it fringe is reaching since over half of the US believes in Creationism [1] compared to around 6% than think the moon landing was a hoax, something I would call fringe. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • In fact creationism is considered as a fringe topic. Wikipedia bases its standards upon science, and creationism is indeed considered fringe by the vast majority of the scientific community within America and even more so elsewhere. You are expected to edit accordingly here, if anyone here is unable to edit appropriately, I suggest to them that http:www.conservapedia.com might be more their bag.GliderMaven (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Glider, you apparently fail to realize that the scientific community isn't the only opinion on the matter. Calling it fringe based solely on a singular community opinion is quite myopic. Didn't the scientific community accept the world as flat and many outside the community correctly challenged that opinion? As for the other part of your reply: I'm pretty sure I know what I'm expected to do here, but since you're open to pointing out the obvious, I'll return the favor and remind you that you're expected to AGF and not just jump right to sarcasm. If you're unable to do that, well I'll refrain from suggesting where I think you should go. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Niteshift. (And I don't accept what GliderMaven said, because I've worked with you in the past, and we've always been able to disagree without disrespecting one another.) As I see it, though, WP:FRINGE is based upon (quoting from the nutshell there) "not broadly supported by scholarship in its field", as opposed to not supported by public opinion polls. I asked you that question because, once one acknowledges that the reason AAM might not accredit the CM is that the AAM bases its decisions on what WP:FRINGE considers the mainstream, then the CM's status with respect to AAM becomes relevant to how the mainstream views the CM. (I'm not saying that we should speculate on why the CM is not accredited, however, for the reasons I've said previously. What I do see as relevant, with respect to the CM's accreditation status, are the arguments, by CM's leader and by people who study museums, about whether or not the CM should qualify.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I appreciate your civility. Since the AAM isn't the only authority out there, they can't be the sole deciding factor either. I just don't see fringe applying here. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Needs context - Tryptofish has convinced me; since there is an article by a museum association about the subject, that would seem to make a short section on the issue worth while. --GRuban (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Needs context per acdixon and Tryptofish Rex (talk) 01:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes there are RS on the issue and it is relevant, per Tryptofish. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes - The lack of accreditation should be mentioned for such pseudoscientific museums. -Abhishikt (talk) 21:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Irrelevant Some of the most interesting museums in the US are not "accredited" and very few foreign museums are "accredited". For example, visit the Lightner Museum, or the John Jay Homestead, or innumerable other museums. [2] shows on the order of a thousand accredited museums in the US total, out of 16,000 to 20,000 total museums in the US [3]. The accredited list includes the Hershey chocolate museum, and excludes the US Mint displays in Philadelphia, (and Peter the eagle). In short, "accreditation" is a very limited subset of museums having little to do with much at all. Collect (talk) 00:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
This seems misinformed, accreditation is an outside review standards based process, including documentation of these [4]. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
His point is that there are lots of places that fit those characteristics of excellence, but are not accredited. We have no idea why, and without a specific statement regarding why the AAM decided not to accredited (if they decided not to rather than the Creation Museum not applying) we have no way to know if it is relevant. If the CM didn't apply, then it is not relevant. If they applied but were declined, then depending on the reason, it may be relevant. We simply don't have the information to know. ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Your first sentence is without any basis or is original research, and therefore should be disregarded. As to the rest, we have RS discussing it in relation to this museum, so your opinion that it is not relevant is also without basis in sources. The RS show it is relevant. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

User:GliderMaven has added a statement about the CM not being accredited. That doesn't seem particularly relevant to me. Museums are not like universities as far as accreditation goes, and presence on the American Alliance of Museums doesn't seem to mean all that much - most museums are not on the list, and it seems to be for a particular size/level/type of museum. A museum's presence on the list might be worth including in an article, it absence doesn't seem to be. StAnselm (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I further note the statement at the AAM Accreditation page: "Accreditation increases your museum’s credibility and value to funders, policy makers, community and peers. Accreditation is a powerful tool to leverage change and helps facilitate loans between institutions." That doesn't sound like something we should be including on Wikipedia. StAnselm (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Other museums usually won't loan it exhibits if it's unaccredited. But that's pretty obvious, proper museums don't consider it very highly, and would not want to be associated with it.GliderMaven (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
And for your central point I completely disagree, all major, reputable, museums are accredited, but small museums are not eligible for accreditation. And this is not a small attraction. The fact that there's a lot of small museums doesn't change the fact that this large 'museum' is unaccredited. GliderMaven (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Another thing I discovered is that the Creation Museum wasn't even created as a museum, it's listed as a religious institution from the get-go.GliderMaven (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd recommend that both of you should please stop edit warring over it, and we can discuss it here in talk. In my opinion, StAnselm is correct that it is unhelpful to have that point about non-accreditation at that place in the lead. Putting it there, in that fashion, is pretty obviously a way of making an editorial comment in Wikipedia's voice (unlike using the phrase "tourist attraction", by the way). On the other hand, it might be appropriate to have a sentence or two about the accreditation status lower on the page, with some context, although I would prefer to base it on a secondary source about the museum's status. Also, GliderMaven's point at the end about its listing as a religious institution seems to be to be appropriate information, if sourced, to include somewhere on the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Seems a fair compromise - but I don't see that being a religious institution and being a museum are exclusive. Religious institutions are known for running charities, schools, and, yes, museums. We've got a whole category tree of them, over a hundred unless I miss my guess: Category:Religious museums. --GRuban (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Sure, but if I understand correctly what GliderMaven said, the initial listing was how the creators of the museum chose, themselves, to characterize it. That's just informative material, and not really a compromise. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
You know, an adverse side-effect of your link to that category about religious museums is that I looked at it, and found Holy Land Experience, which is described in the lead sentence as a "theme park". If something can be a museum and a theme park at the same time, it seems to me that something could be a museum and a tourist attraction at the same time, too. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Plenty of museums are major tourist attractions.GliderMaven (talk) 23:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, they are. And it sure seems odd to me how a few editors here feel a burning need to hide the fact that this is true, as though being a tourist attraction would somehow cast doubt on their beliefs. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
No one ever said that it wasn't a tourist attraction... you (Tryptofish) accuse me of beating a dead horse, but you bring this up in a different discussion thread because your argument failed in another one. Tryptofail... ReformedArsenal (talk) 01:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
No one ever said it wasn't? Oh, they (you) just said that Wikipedia couldn't say that it was. The reason that I brought it up here is that it follows directly from a link to a category here. Never once have I made fun of your user name. That's because I am capable of making logical arguments in conformance with WP:CIVIL, and I don't have to resort to that kind of conduct. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Certainly being accredited would mean it was a museum; but conversely being unaccredited doesn't mean it's not a museum.
However being unaccredited means it hasn't been able to successfully pass the test to be considered a high quality museum, something that costs little. How is that an organisation like this with such a big budget is unable to negotiate this relatively straightforward process? GliderMaven (talk) 23:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Are you sure they've wanted to? Have they applied for accreditation? StAnselm (talk) 23:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Does it even matter? Failing to want to negotiate this kind of process says something about their organization as well. The point is that, factually, they are unaccredited. It's up to them to explain to people why they're not.GliderMaven (talk) 23:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
What is your point in adding this information? Are you going to go to every other page for a non-accredited museum and add this? If not, why not? It seems that you are trying to undercut the museum by adding this information. Do you have WP:RS that treat the subject in the same way? ReformedArsenal (talk) 01:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
My point is only that it is unaccredited. If that's OK with the reader, that's OK with me. What is YOUR point for removing this fact from the article. Why are you so desperate that you are edit warring away a true statement from the article??? How can I undercut something by stating a simple true fact? I added it together with a reliable source, and you've removed it. I can only assume that you don't like the fact that it's unaccredited, and are trying to hide this from the readers. That's a clear breach of NPOV. You're trying to play up the museum, implying by omission that it's a higher quality museum than it is, whereas the absence of accreditation gives strong reason to think it may not be. If it really was up to the relevant standard it would have the accreditation. Practically speaking any major museum that exceeds the standard is accredited.GliderMaven (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
First of all, I didn't remove anything... second of all, I don't think the fact that it is accredited really isn't relevant. We have no idea WHY it isn't accredited, maybe it was too much money? Maybe they didn't want to associate themselves with a secular organization? Maybe they are unaware of this organization? Maybe their application got lost in the mail? We simply don't know why they are unaccredited, and therefore the fact isn't relevant. If you had a statement from AAM that said "they don't meet our quality standards" that would be different. ReformedArsenal (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
The museum also isn't a zoo, and it isn't a government facility, and it isn't a military base, and it isn't a gazillion other things. Wikipedia articles cover what a subject is, not what it is not. In a similar vein, a year or so ago, an editor started going through all biography pages of Christian pastors, tagging dozens of them as "not Calvinist". After some edit-warring and arbitration, all of the "not Calvinist" tags were removed as irrelevant, because none had made a controversial claim about being Calvinist in the first place. AAM accreditation is not a be-all-end-all of determining what is or is not a museum. They are a self-appointed body, and have no power over the dictionary. If there was a story about the CM seeking accreditation and being denied, that might be relevant, but to say that lack of accreditation, alone, is relevant requires synthesis, which is original research.--Lyonscc (talk) 13:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
OK, to cover your points one by one. First nobody else has claimed that the lack of accreditations proves that the CM is not a museum, but you keep repeating this falsehood as if other people have suggested it. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and encyclopedias certainly do state what things aren't as well as what they are. I can see no relation between this and Calvinism. I looked into it, and the AAM are not a self-appointed body, the board are elected from representatives from the member museums. Adding a reliably sourced true statement about the CM not being accredited is not any kind of synthesis. GliderMaven (talk) 16:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
They *are* self-appointed arbiters of accreditation. There is no international, objective standard, nor any government bodies with consequential requirements/actions based upon accreditation. As you describe, they are basically a group comprised of insiders who make their own determination as gatekeepers of who's in the club or not. It's not like Underwriter Labs or School Accreditation Boards, where the accrediting actually means something and has significant consequences in the broader world. None. So, the Calvinist example (while I was not saying was a direct correlation, but rather an example of the same sort of thing) is quite apropos. The CM fits the basic definition of museum and there isn't a "museum police" who decides that "you fit the dictionary definition, but not ours, therefore you're not *really* a museum". The reason your suggestion is synthesis is because it suggests a synthesized claim that the CM wanted to be accredited by the AAM, but was refused. No WP:RS exists to corroborate this, and therefore it *is* WP:synthesis.--Lyonscc (talk) 03:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I also commented on this below, but we need to distinguish between what is WP:SYNTH and what is not. I agree with Lyonscc that for Wikipedia to imply that we know why the CM is not accredited would be SYNTH. As to whether editors think that the AAM is or is not qualified to pass judgment on the CM, that doesn't matter. We have sourcing, below, about what Ham thinks about it, and it's entirely appropriate to quote him on that. And we can present an opposing opinion by Jennings, without engaging in any SYNTH. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


They are absolutely not self appointed!
The term self appointed means that you appoint yourselves. For example, a board of members have a vote only within the board to elect EACH OTHER. That's self appointment.
In this case they hold elections to form a board from representatives from all the museums that are members, not a vote by members of the board.
That is in no way, shape or form, self appointed. If you consider that to be self appointed, then so are the president of the united states and members of congress, because it's almost exactly the same!!!! GliderMaven (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Your arguments do not seem to have a shred of credibility here.GliderMaven (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Please, let's stop with this no "shred of credibility" hyperbole. Although I agree with you that the AAM is not self-appointed, I also agree with the other editor that it would be SYNTH to speculate on why the CM is not accredited by AAM. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Actually, if you want a self-appointed body, I'm virtually certain that the board of management of the Creation Museum is self-appointed.GliderMaven (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I suggest the following approach to how we could write about it, without continuing with the idealogical polarization in this discussion. Emphasize the opinions of Ham and Jennings, giving them equal weight, rather than making it about the fact that it is not accredited – and word it as the CM "is not a member of" AAM, instead of saying that it "is not accredited". Whereas saying that it is not accredited implies that it might have been judged negatively, not being a member makes it plainly clear that it is just as possible that it didn't choose to join, or any number of other possibilities, as that it was turned down for membership. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Source information

Based on the discussion up to this point, I figured it would be a good idea to look for additional sources commenting about whether or not accreditation is of significance to the Creation museum. I quickly found two:

  1. An article first published in Museum Magazine (magazine website), and viewable online at a website maintained by the American Alliance of Museums, the organization that does the accreditation in the US: [5]. It's a clearly opinionated opinion piece by an editor of museum-related material, arguing not only that creation museums should not be accredited, but also, quite provocatively in the context of the other RfC above, that they should not even be called "museums". It seems to provide context that the AAM does not consider institutions such as the Creation Museum to satisfy their accreditation criteria.
  2. And a blog piece by non other than Ken Ham himself: [6]! Clearly, Ham himself regards the issue of accreditation as being one worthy of commentary. Something that caught my attention: some of the things that Ham says there, such as quoting the dictionary definition of museum, have been repeated by editors on this talk page word-for-word, without attribution. Are any editors here following Ham's lead without acknowledging it?

--Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

What? People might appeal to the dictionary definition in order to determine whether to use a given word to describe something? They must be copying each other... ReformedArsenal (talk) 22:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
It's more like not just going to the dictionary, but quoting the same dictionary and then the same commentary about the dictionary, as well as the same commentary about other things. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I think you're overstating things - Ham doesn't really say anything about accreditation in his blog post, so it's not true to say that "Ham himself regards the issue of accreditation as being one worthy of commentary". Again, there is nothing here to suggest that the CM has sought accreditation. The Jennings article isn't really about accreditation either. StAnselm (talk) 22:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Ham quotes someone else who specifically refers to accreditation, and responds to what that person says, and expresses at length his own views about the museum community. Jennings talks about broader issues than just accreditation, notably whether the word "museum" should be used at all, but she does include accreditation and recognition as a bona fide museum. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Let me put it this way: I think there's enough here to support the ideas that Ham does not care holds a negative opinion about accreditation, and that the accrediting organization has views that are incompatible with them wanting to accredit Ham's museum. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
It's not our job to interpret Ham's words... unless you have a direct quote from him saying that he holds a negative opinion about accreditation, or a WP:RS that says he says that... it doesn't belong in the article. ReformedArsenal (talk) 00:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
OK then. He quotes a section from the AAM about accreditation, under his own words: "What’s more, the Cincinnati Museum Center is actually a member of the AAM:". He then says: "The Creation Museum certainly fits under these definitions." Thus, he says that, in his reading, the Creation Museum qualifies for AAM accreditation. So how about this: note that the museum is not on the AAM list of accredited museums, cite Ham as expressing his belief that the Creation Museum is qualified for accreditation, and cite Jennings as disputing that claim. As I have said above, I think that it's a bad idea to simply state that the museum is unaccredited. But this, I think, provides the needed context for explaining the situation with respect to accreditation, without Wikipedia taking sides. We don't need to (and shouldn't) offer any speculation about why it is not on the list of accredited museums, just state the verifiable fact, and present Ham's opinion in the direct quote, "The Creation Museum certainly fits under these definitions", and then present an opposing view from Jennings. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
That still doesn't do anything to explain the relevance of that verifiable fact... ReformedArsenal (talk) 10:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't justify presenting the lack of accreditation as an objective negative in Wikipedia's voice, that much is true. But it does show that Ham has chosen to comment publicly in quoting the accreditation criteria and stating that he believes the museum satisfies them, and it shows that other people who study museums have argued that museums such as this one should not be given accreditation. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Actually, what you are describing is a perfect example of WP:SYNTHESIS, a subset of WP:NOR.--Lyonscc (talk) 03:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm pretty experienced with editing, and I think I understand very well what is and isn't SYNTH. SYNTH would reside in drawing some kind of conclusion, in Wikipedia's voice, from either the Ham and/or the Jennings source, about why the museum is not accredited. But as long as we don't do that, there is zero SYNTH in quoting Ham as saying what he said about accreditation, quoting Jennings as saying what she said about it, and presenting the two views together without expressing favoritism, in Wikipedia's voice, between them. There just isn't. Wikipedia pages compliant with WP:NPOV do this all the time, presenting each of two sides to a debate, without violating WP:NOR.
I do agree with you, though, that it matters how we word it, because we shouldn't imply causality between those views and the fact that it is not listed as accredited. In fact, perhaps there is a case to be made that, contrary to the previous edits that were on the page, we don't even need to say that it isn't accredited, but instead note that there are opposing opinions about its eligibility for accreditation (although it might leave readers wondering: well, is it accredited?, which is why I still think we can include the information if worded properly). --Tryptofish (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm still not clear what this would add to the article. What is the actual significance of being accredited or not accredited... We still don't know if they have applied for accreditation or not, if they were denied why they were denied, if they have made changes in an attempt to get accredited, etc. We simply don't have any information about why they are not accredited and therefore we are adding a fact with no context whatsoever... furthermore, if we don't know if it is relevant or not how can we assess if it is WP:UNDUE or not? ReformedArsenal (talk) 00:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

That's why I increasingly think that we should not focus on whether or not it is accredited (and particularly we must not speculate on why it isn't), and instead we should focus instead on what Ham said, and the opposing, balancing view from Jennings. The fact that Ham himself chose to quote from the AAM policy on accreditation makes it pretty difficult to argue that a few sentences here would be undue weight. The AAM is notable enough within the museum subject matter that we have a page about them. And the Jennings perspective, so long as we don't devote more than a due weight sentence or so to it, is very relevant. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Why are the quotes relevant? What do they add to the article? What do they tell us about the museum itself (which is the subject of the article)? ReformedArsenal (talk) 00:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
They tell us about both sides of an aspect of how the CM is viewed. If someone who studies museums professionally says that it isn't even a museum, that seems rather relevant. The American Alliance of Museums is relevant to American museums. And if the person who founded the museum has decided to comment publicly and at some length about the AAM, that seems rather relevant too. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Also, if you consider the threaded discussion under the other RfC, where the dictionary definitions are being discussed, these sources go to the issue of whether or not the CM even is a museum. There are two sides to that argument, and I think that the question is undeniably relevant. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
That seems reasonable to me. It also seems reasonable to me that if there is an argument about relevance of a topic, in that for example one side thinks it is not of interest, and the other side thinks it is, and they both have their points, then the trend should be to accept the positive opinion, since at least one side finds it of interest, unless the other side can show a definite non-sequitur in the claim of interest (such as by showing that it really belongs in another article.) As far as I can see, this claim does belong here and is of interest, so for my money, in it should go. This being the second time of my being RFC'd here, can I go now? JonRichfield (talk) 15:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The sources listed (a letter to the editor of a magazine and a blog post) don't meet the level of WP:RS, and the list of accredited museums by the AAM does not provide any context for the CM's not being listed. There is nothing to indicate that this is significant, and, per the earlier example of the Oscars, this is the equivalent of going to every non-Oscar-winning actor's wikipedia page and including "this actor has never won an Oscar". As it is, the AAM is no more the a definitive ruling body for museums than is the Hollywood Foreign Press a definitive judge of acting prowess. Arguing that just because someone thinks something is relevant, it should, therefore, be included, is just a stupid standard not in effect anywhere else in Wikipedia, so why should that be the case here?--Lyonscc (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Can we please stop with this calling of other editors' positions "stupid" and so forth? Actually, both sources do meet WP:RS. The blog is by Ken Ham, and it's a reliable source for what Ken Ham thinks. As a blog, it is not a reliable source for his claims about creationism being true, in actual fact, but it's a reliable source for the fact that he says such things. In this case, it's a reliable source for the fact that he has commented about the AAM, and what his comments were. There's nothing out-of-policy in presenting his views about that subject, so long as we do not editorialize in Wikipedia's voice about his views. Please go back and re-read WP:RS#Self-published and questionable sources, and note the distinction between "self-published sources" in general, and "self-published sources as sources on themselves". As for the Jennings source, it is not a letter to the editor. It is a magazine article, written by an editor of magazines about museums. It's a reliable source as to what she thinks. Again, it's entirely in-policy to present it, so long as we attribute her opinions to her, and not adopt them in Wikipedia's voice. She is arguably what WP:RS calls "an established expert" "in the relevant field" of museums, but even if one wants to dispute that, her views fall entirely within WP:RS#Biased or opinionated sources, as among "the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject". As I've said before, I agree with you that we should not get into why the CM is not accredited, but I still think that it's very useful to present Ham's and Jennings' views on the subject of accreditation. I'll offer, once again: would you like to take this question to WP:RSN? I'd be happy to, because I'm confident that I'm right. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Should we ask for someone to close the RfC and determine consensus? (It doesn't happen automatically.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
    • (Sound of crickets.) OK then, I'm going to suggest that we don't make a broad statement about non-accreditation, but instead that we present the two opposing views from Ham and Jennings, lower on the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'm almost loathe to re-open this dormant discussion, but in looking for additional material to add to this article, I ran across the following quote in Genesis in Hyperreality, an article available through Questia: "Although the Creation Museum is advertised as a tourist attraction on the basis of its museum status, it does not house an accessioned collection, a central criterion for being recognized as a museum by the American Association of Museums." So, I suspect they haven't applied for accreditation if they know they don't have such a collection. Now, this may just kick the can down the road – why don't they have such a collection? Just thought I'd add this since I ran across it. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I'm quite happy to hear from another editor in this talk section, thanks. My reaction is that this could be an additional source with respect to which accreditation criteria they do or do not meet, and with respect to the ways in which they differ from some other museums. However, for all the reasons already discussed here, I'm pretty sure that we need to steer clear of anything about what they know or don't know, or any other speculation of what they might be thinking or whether they have considered whether or not to apply. The one clear source about it is Ken Ham's blog statement that he believes that the CM satisfies all the criteria for accreditation. He says nothing about whether they ever applied for it, or thought about applying for it, and any conclusions that we might draw would be speculation. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed paragraph on accreditation

If anyone still cares about this issue, I've drafted a potential addition to address it based on the sources Tryptofish cited above and my own research. I propose the following as a second paragraph under "Displays and exhibits" (before the subheading):

Writing in the journal Argumentation and Advocacy, authors Casey Kelly and Kristen Hoerl point out that "[t]raditionally, a museum's identity has rested upon its display of objects presented as material evidence of the natural and human history of our planet", but note that "physical remnants are not available as evidence for events described in the Book of Genesis ... Consequently, the Creation Museum demonstrates the materiality of creationist thinking through its display of objects that are, by and large, created for the museum or manufactured recently."[1] The Creation Museum is not accredited by the American Alliance of Museums, and Gretchen Jennings, editor of Exhibitionist, a bimonthly journal published by the National Association of Museum Exhibition, argued that creationist museums like the Creation Museum are not museums at all.[2][3] In a 2013 blog post, Ken Ham maintained that, while the Creation Museum is not AAM accredited, it meets the definition of a museum found on the AAM web site.[4] Kelly and Hoerl note that the Creation Museum would not meet the AAM's standards for accreditation because it lacks an accessioned collection of artifacts.[1]

Your comments are welcome. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I like it, and I think you did a better job of it than I would have done. I have an idiosyncratic dislike of red links, but that's not a big deal. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Done, per lack of opposition on this page. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Fine paragraph, but I don't think it belongs under "Displays and exhibits", more under "Criticism". --GRuban (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure where the best location for it would be, but I'd like to float the idea of eventually getting away from a dedicated "Criticism" section, since these sections tend to be magnets for editing disputes. I've worked at other pages about controversial topics where editors have avoided criticism sections for that reason. An advantage of having the criticism-related material integrated somewhere into the rest of the text is that it helps make sure that we only include criticism of the Museum itself, and not criticism of broader issues such as ID, thus avoiding possible coatracks. I think that the page additions being made now may give us an opportunity to work towards doing away with a separate criticism section. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Tryptofish on the difficulties of a Criticism section, and it is my intent to eventually absorb the most relevant content from that section into other sections. You can see my proposed Beliefs section (below) for an example of how I would like to do that. I do think the paragraph fits under Displays and exhibits, however, because it notes the absence of physical artifacts that prove YEC, notes that most of those on display were created specifically for that purpose, and then ties that information into the accreditation issue because the lack of an accessioned collection of artifacts is one reason – and based on the above discussion, the only reason we know for sure – that the museum isn't accredited. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 21:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed expansion

Latest comment: 11 years ago15 comments3 people in discussion

I was drawn to this article by the above RfCs, and I observed that there seems to be some concern about how much weight the creationism vs. evolution debate is given in the article relative to actual facts about the museum itself. Since I have access to the electronic archives of both The Kentucky Post (Cincinnati) and the Lexington Herald-Leader, I thought I'd see what I could dig up. Although I'm not finished with my research, I have a draft of some information I'd like to include. Since I'm in the young Earth creationist camp, I suspect my contributions will be viewed by some with added suspicion, so I thought I'd give everyone a preview here first to see if there are any potential fish hooks that could touch off an edit war. I propose replacing the first five paragraphs of the History section with the content at User:Acdixon/Creation Museum stuff. (Please consider only the visible text. What's commented out is still a work in progress.)

Some anticipatory comments:

  • The present article states, "The museum is located north-northeast of Petersburg, Kentucky, roughly 12 miles (19 km) from the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport". I checked both footnotes for this and couldn't find this fact mentioned in either. I went back to the archives I can access and found both a different direction (west, as opposed to north-northeast) and distance (4 miles, as opposed to 12) cited in The Kentucky Post. I can't explain the discrepancy, but I went with the info I could source.
  • I suspect that some folks will want to preserve the following sentence: "The facility's stated mission is to "exalt Jesus Christ as Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer", to "equip Christians to better evangelize the lost", and to "challenge visitors to receive Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord"." I propose that it be moved further down the article, perhaps to the Displays and exhibits section. It doesn't fit as neatly with the rewritten content I propose, although I think there probably is value in saving it.
  • I feel like explaining the following passage adds value for the reader: "A significant reason for the time span between planning and execution related to zoning battles which saw the museum's original location turned down. The zoning issues continued to its present location, with the final legal victory for Answers in Genesis becoming official in March 2000." The draft I propose shows how some opposition was from ideological opponents, while some was because of very run-of-the-mill logistical issues. My draft may have too much detail, but it was easier to include the detail while I was reviewing the sources and cut it out later if consensus dictates.
  • All the information about fundraising details (average contribution, million dollar contributions, etc.) seems to be from AiG itself. Not saying they are being dishonest about it, but it seems the nature of a primary source somewhat limits the usefulness of the information. If others disagree, I think it can be woven into my proposed draft.

OK, that's it. Your feedback is hereby solicited! :) Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Overall, I think that what you are proposing is fine (maybe a little wordy, but that's not a big deal), although most of it has to do with aspects of the subject that are not the aspects that made me take an interest in the page, so maybe I'm missing something. One thing that does interest me a lot is that issue of avoiding a coat-rack about creationism versus evolution, and I do have a suggestion relating to that, and relating to the source material that you are working with. I think you are in a position to make the page more specific about what, precisely, the exhibits at the museum are. That would be a good thing to get specific about on the page here. And, in doing that, we have a possible solution to many of the "criticism" issues. We should minimize the amount of text on this page about the general debate about creationism. Instead, we should write about individual displays at the Museum, and then present, where available, criticisms specifically of those displays, from sources that are specifically about the Museum. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Yep, you get where I'm headed, I think. I thought the local sources would probably give it more coverage. I've only researched up to opening day, so there is more to come, and it is starting to get more into the exhibits and such. Thought I might ought to get what I have on history so far transferred over before I tackle that section. I also wanted to gauge the response to what should be a pretty innocuous addition before I do any more. If every little thing is going to turn into an ideological edit war, I'm not wasting my time. At best, this could become good or featured content that shows how editors on both sides can work together to make a neutral article on a really contentious subject. At least, I'd like to add some non-contentious material so at least there's more than coat rack fodder there. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 21:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks so much, that sounds excellent! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Based upon the (lack of) discussion here, I've transplanted my text to the main article. More to come, I hope. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Attendance section

OK, more feedback needed. I've drafted a new "Attendance" section to replace the section I clumsily called "Visitation" after my last expansion of the article proper. You can find the draft section at User:Acdixon/Creation Museum stuff#Attendance. Again, let me preface this with some anticipatory comments.

  • The proposed draft eliminates mention of Congressman Geoff Davis, who seems only of tangential importance, at best, to the subject at hand.
  • It also eliminates an uncited, but doubtless reasonably accurate quote from Ken Ham about the import of the museum's opening. Not sure it adds much anyway.
  • Mention of a May 26 ribbon cutting is removed; it was sourced to an AiG blog post. Again, that doesn't mean I dispute the accuracy of the fact; I just don't see this as terribly important.
  • The very vague statement about the Chronicle of Higher Education's review is removed.
  • The draft presents attendance figures in the context of related events, not just abstract milestones.
  • Probably the most controversial change is the reduction of space given to the Rally for Reason protest at the museum's opening. The present article gives it a paragraph in the Controversy and criticism section, while the proposed draft sums it up in two sentences. I don't think the condensed version costs us anything in terms of enduring content about the protests, other than perhaps the involvement of Campaign to Defend the Constitution, but the nature of their involvement is unspecified, and the whole sentence is uncited. If someone can give some of these specifics, cited in reliable sources, I have no problem including them.

Fire away. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. My feedback is actually just WP:BEBOLD. Not really what you were asking (sorry), but I suspect that nothing you are doing is going to be controversial. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I considered WP:BEBOLD, but I really have no desire to touch off an edit war or be accused of whitewashing the article one way or the other. If I document these changes in advance every step of the way, no one can accuse me of trying to hijack the article. I found out at my RFA that just identifying myself as a conservative Christian automatically makes me suspect in some editors' eyes, so I'm using additional caution. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
In general I like the changes. Perhaps the section should be re-titled "Opening and attendance". The current section title, "Visitation", has another religious connotation. However, I like the quote from Ken Ham, as it adds color and personality to the passage; if a citation could be found, I would certainly keep it in. Plazak (talk) 13:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
OK, I found the quote on the AiG web site, which qualifies as a RS in this case. Added and cited it in my proposed draft. Agree that "Visitation" was a horrible title to begin with. When I transfer the draft over, I'll go with "Attendance" or "Opening and attendance". Thanks for the comments. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, given the minimal discussion on this page, I've transplanted my draft into the article, complete with requisite adjustments. I also added a picture of Ken Ham and juggled some of the other photos. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Displays and exhibits section

Me again. Thanks to a couple of very detailed walkthroughs – written by museum critics – I've been able to add some significant heft to a proposed replacement for the current "Displays and exhibits" section. Some may say it's a bit too hefty, and that may be fair in places; I'm happy to discuss. Note, though, that writing in the journal Argumentation and Advocacy, authors Casey Kelly and Kristen Hoerl note that "the museum constructs an argument chain in which claims from previous rooms provide support for subsequent claims". In other words, both the content of the exhibits and their placement relative to each other is significant. I've tried to balance the need for concision with this important factor. The result is here: User:Acdixon/Creation Museum stuff#Displays and exhibits.

Two bits that would possibly need saving that are not incorporated into the proposed draft are:

  • The first sentence of the current "Displays and exhibits" section, which states: "The facility's stated mission is to 'exalt Jesus Christ as Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer', to 'equip Christians to better evangelize the lost', and to 'challenge visitors to receive Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord'." You'll remember I moved that here from another section earlier, but it no longer fits with the proposed draft. I think I can find a home for it in an as-yet-unwritten section I have planned, but for now, I'm open to suggestions as to where it should go in the interim.
  • The fifth paragraph of the existing section about whether or not dinosaurs are the ancestors of modern birds. I'm thinking we can move this somewhere into the controversy section for now.

As per my previous practice, I'll leave this thread in place for about a week, or until discussion dies down, whichever lasts longer. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Done, per lack of discussion here. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 12:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Beliefs section

This one might or might not prove controversial, since it will suck up a good bit of content from the controversies section and put it in context. I've drafted a new "Beliefs" section (open to changing the title if need be) that outlines the museum's stated beliefs and contrasts them with other, similar beliefs as well as with scientific consensus. I propose to add this as the article's first section, before the History section. See what you think: User:Acdixon/Creation Museum stuff#Beliefs. As usual, I'll wait about a week or until discussion dies down. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Done, per absence of discussion here. I had to modify a few sentences to make them fit within the overall article, and I removed redundant information from the criticism section. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Lead

Latest comment: 11 years ago36 comments5 people in discussion

The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article - not a detailed exposition of any one segment of the article. In general, shorter is better, and making extended commentary in the lead does not improve encyclopedia articles. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

If shorter is better, then let's delete the lead entirely.   But seriously, we've had an RfC over the language there, and just because an IP editor drove by and made some non-consensus deletions that were reverted, that doesn't make it time for a new round of edit wars. I've reverted it to where it was 24 hours ago (actually less than that), and I suggest that anything that anyone wants to delete should be proposed and discussed here in talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Read WP:LEAD -- Leads are summaries, not dissertations, and making 80% of a lead be criticism is UNDUE on its face. In fact, 0% of the lead is promoting the museum. As for eliminating leads, try proposing that at [[Talk:WP:LEAD]], but not here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Your edit amounted to whitewashing. Coverage of the "museum" in reliable independent sources is overwheming critical. The lead conforms to WP:WEIGHT. The fact that "0% of the lead is promoting the museum" is as it should be. That is not what WP is for. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining your interpretation of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Collect (talk) 20:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey, folks. As you can see above, I am, perhaps unwisely, trying to expand parts of this article not necessarily connected to the evolution vs. creationism debate. If successful, the expansion will give us more information to summarize in the lead. If we can keep things from going thermonuclear before then, maybe we can come up with something more people are happy with. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I think that before Collect lectures me about WP:LEAD, they ought to read WP:EW. Anyway, I am in full agreement with what Acdixon said. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
First - I am not plural. Second - the issue about making sure that "conservative Christians hate gays" or the like is stressed is not actually a valid position for Wikipedia to use - encyclopedia articles must conform with WP:NPOV and other policies, and your snark does not address that important issue. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I didn't meant to call you plural, just trying to use gender-neutral language. Is it snarky to say "thank you most kindly"? And my position is simply that it's a better idea to discuss those proposed changes and get consensus in talk, rather than to edit war, hardly a controversial position. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

Now that I've added a substantial amount of new material to the article, I think we have enough to rewrite the lead so that it focuses less on the evolution-creationism debate – we already have an article for that – and more on the specifics of the museum. Here's something I drafted in my user space:

The Creation Museum, located in Petersburg, Kentucky, is operated by the Christian apologetics ministry Answers in Genesis (AiG) to promote a Young Earth creationist explanation of the origins of the universe based on a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative. The 60,000-square-foot (5,600 m2) museum cost $27 million – raised entirely through private donations to AiG – and opened on May 28, 2007. In addition to the museum proper, the facility also houses a special effects theater, a planetarium, and a gift shop, and serves as the headquarters of AiG. The museum employs approximately 300 people in total, and all permanent employees must sign a statement of faith affirming their belief in AiG's principles. In August 2013, AiG officials estimated that almost 1.9 million people had visited the museum, with yearly attendance surpassing 250,000 in each year of the museum's operation.

Consistent with its Young Earth creationist ideology, the museum's exhibits depict the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs, maintain that the Earth is approximately 6,000 years old, and dispute the idea that life arose via the process of biological evolution. These and other ideas presented in the museum, contradict scientific consensus, prompting scientists and educators to condemn the museum, its worldview, and AiG. Proponents of other non-secular theories of universal origin – including Old Earth creationism, theistic evolution, and intelligent design – have also been critical of the museum, claiming its rejection of scientific consensus damages the credibility of Christianity and its adherents. The museum is not accredited by the American Alliance of Museums, and some scientists and museum professionals have argued that it does not fit the formal definition of a museum. Despite these and other criticisms, public opinion polling in the United States consistently shows substantial support for tenets of Young Earth creationism.

Both supporters and opponents of the museum have generally praised the aesthetic quality of its displays – which include representations of biblical people and events, fiberglass and animatronic dinosaurs, videos, and explanatory signage – but some critics have noted discrepancies in appearance between the museum's models and the fossil record. Since its opening, the museum has added attractions such as a petting zoo, a zip line and sky bridge course, and a bug exhibit.

Comments are welcome. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for working on this. Here comes my digital red pen:
  1. I don't like the last sentence of the second paragraph. The first part of the sentence, about public opinion in general, does not relate directly to the Museum, and should be left out of the lead. The second part of the sentence, about attendance, could then be moved to the end of the first paragraph.
  • I agree with Plazak's comment below about this. If we eliminate the bit about opinion polling, the reader is left wondering how this museum that is on the fringe of scientific consensus raised $27 million and draws a quarter million people a year. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  1. Given the overwhelming position of mainstream scientists in the source material, I think "some scientists" should be changed, simply, to "scientists", in the first sentence of the third paragraph.
  • I included the "some" because I recall reading some sources – and I can't remember which specifically because I've read a lot of sources on this in the past couple of months – where experts who commented on the quality of the displays did not point out discrepencies with the fossil record. Whether that was because they didn't see any or because they didn't find them worthy of comment is unclear. I probably wouldn't go to the mat to retain the "some", but I think it's defensible. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Those two points are the only things I feel strongly about, and overall, I think you did a very good job. Some very minor quibbles are:
  1. I don't know if we'll end up with editorial disagreements about "facility" in the opening sentence. Perhaps, instead: "The Creation Museum was constructed in Petersburg, Kentucky...".
  1. In the third sentence of the first paragraph, it should be "and a gift shop", to distinguish the "and" for the final phrase about headquarters.
  1. In the second sentence of the second paragraph, I would delete the comma after "These".
--Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Let's not reopen up that settled dispute about calling it a "facility" in the first sentence. "Facility" is vague and undescriptive, and there is nothing wrong with calling it a "museum." As discussed above, the overwhelming majority of editors favor "museum," so "facility" is going nowhere. Other than that, I like it, provided that the proper references are inserted. As for the popularity of young-earth creationism, it certainly should be included, and quantified with references to public opinion polls, because it is the key to the whole phenomenon; without popular support, the museum would be empty. Just as it is important to note in the article that creationism is outside the scientific mainstream, it is also valid to note that creationism is in, or not far from, the mainstream of popular belief. Good work. Plazak (talk) 01:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both for your comments. I look forward to any additional feedback from you folks or others. I feel like we're making some real progress taking this from a WP:COATRACK to a quality article. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In the hope that we don't also have to reopen the dispute about calling it a museum, please let me repeat my suggestion of "The Creation Museum was constructed in Petersburg, Kentucky...". (The discussion wasn't "overwhelming", by the way.) As for the popularity, it's already included on the page, so I'm referring only to including it in the lead. The sentence as it is proposed is WP:SYNTH, so if it is going to stay in that form, it would need sourcing in which sources independent of the Museum relate the attendance levels to the public opinion polls. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the use of the term "museum", the RfC may not have been "overwhelming" but was closed with consensus to use the term "museum". I think that's sufficient reason to leave the first sentence as revised by Plazak.
Regarding the opinion poll, I could see breaking the linkage between it and the bit about attendance by removing the "and", and perhaps even by moving the attendance figure to the end of the first paragraph, as suggested. I do strongly feel, however, that the opinion polling should remain in the lead. No, it's not about the museum directly, but the relevance to the topic is so clear as to be obvious. Newspaper articles about the museum and AiG regularly cite similar polls as part of their reporting. Why? Because it's critical to understand why, if the scientists are so settled on the evolution issue, it is still considered a controversial issue. The answer is because a large portion of the public at large, unscientific though they may (or may not) be, accept YEC. This explains why a creation museum can draw so many visitors and generate so much money when, say, a Flat Earth museum likely wouldn't do as well. Both endorse views scientists soundly reject, but one of those views has substantial support among the general public. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
About the second point, concerning attendance etc., I'll support what you said about splitting the sentence, with the attendance at the end of the first paragraph, and the polling not directly linked to it. I think that's a reasonable compromise.
Done. Would that all editors on Wikipedia were willing to be this reasonable. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
About the lead sentence, I ask everyone please to compare and contrast:
  1. "The Creation Museum is a museum constructed in Petersburg, Kentucky, by the Christian apologetics ministry Answers in Genesis (AiG) to promote...."
  2. "The Creation Museum was constructed in Petersburg, Kentucky, by the Christian apologetics ministry Answers in Genesis (AiG) to promote...."
I want to argue that #2 is entirely neutral, and it doesn't say that it isn't a museum, or call it a "facility" or anything else. It's clean and straightforward, and it won't attract any future edit warring from users who want to change the word "museum". In contrast, #1 includes the phrase "...Museum is a museum...". Please think about that. Of course a museum is a museum. It's redundant. Please be open to wording it the simpler way. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm open to #2 mainly because "Creation Museum is a museum" is somewhat awkward. That may have been my reasoning for resorting to "facility" in the first place. (Can't remember; I've slept since then.) However, I usually prefer a lead sentence of the form "X is a Y", which is why I'm not totally sold on #2. Also, #2 necessitates a shift to the past tense. Since the museum is still operational, it seems we should find an alternative that utilizes the present tense.
I think the point about neutrality is overblown. When you've got an RfC and the majority of the reliable sources (left, right, and center) that have no problem with calling it a museum, then we shouldn't have a problem calling it a museum. I say this not to be argumentative, but in case someone else proposes another option that is less awkward than "Museum is a museum" but still refers to the subject of the article as a museum (common, not proper, noun). This should not be considered non-neutral. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Just to be clear, what I said about neutrality wasn't meant to say that "museum" is non-neutral, although in hindsight, I can see how it sounded that way, sorry. Rather, I was just trying to say that my suggestion was neutral, in contrast to previous versions such as "facility" or "tourist attraction". I take your point about present tense. I can also understand your point about subject is, and, if we follow that formulation, I don't see an alternative to "museum".
However, we can put it in the present tense by focusing on something other than "constructed". How about: "The Creation Museum, in Petersburg, Kentucky, is operated by the Christian apologetics ministry Answers in Genesis (AiG) to promote...."? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
It still strikes me as slightly inelegant, but no more so than "Museum is a museum". I've adopted this language for now. Maybe someone else will have a suggestion soon. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Problem: Every museum article I found has the word "museum" in the lead -- removing it here would be the odd one out for sure. Best practice is to do what all the other articles do, really. Collect (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I think both Tryptofish and I agree that there is no problem with "museum". The problem is the proximate repetition of the word museum in the phrase "Creation Museum is a museum". However, your suggetion about doing what the other articles do has some merit, so I looked at all of our FA and GA class articles about museums where the proper name of the museum ends with the word "museum". Here's the list, with the relevant phrasing:
  • Icelandic Phallological Museum (FA): "The Icelandic Phallological Museum, located in Reykjavík, Iceland, houses the world's largest display of penises and penile parts."
  • Imperial War Museum (GA): "Imperial War Museums (IWM) is a British national museum organisation..."
  • John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum (GA): "The John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum is the presidential library and museum of the 35th President of the United States, John F. Kennedy."
  • Palanga Amber Museum (GA): "The Palanga Amber Museum, near the Baltic Sea in Palanga, Lithuania, is a branch of the Lithuanian Art Museum."
  • SeaCity Museum (GA): "The SeaCity Museum is a museum in Southampton, England, which opened on 10 April 2012..."
So there isn't any real consistency among our "best articles", although a good bit of that is due to the fact that, of the relevant entities, one is more accurately described as an organization, one as a branch of a museum, and one as a library and museum. That leaves only the Icelandic Phallological Museum – one of the strange ironies of Wikipedia that we should be comparing that topic with this one – and the SeaCity Museum. Oddly, the former uses phrasing somewhat similar to what Tryptofish has proposed, while SeaCity Museum uses the phrasing "SeaCity Museum is a museum" that both he and I find mildly problematic. I guess one point of view would be to say that Icelandic Phallological Museum is the "higher rated" article and represents the best practice, while the other would be to say that the GA reviewer of SeaCity Museum didn't seem to have a problem with the phrasing "museum is a museum", so it must be OK. I think the sample size is far too small to draw either conclusion with certainty, however, which pretty much leaves us where we were to begin with. Just thought I'd record the results of this little exercise here in hopes of provoking further discussion and maybe inspiring some as-yet-unwritten compromise that addresses both issues sufficiently. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for using that language at least for now, and for your very thorough examination of other pages. Like Collect, I had noticed that we have a lot of other pages that say "museum is a museum". I admit that there is no perfect solution here, and I'll suggest that we not let perfection become the enemy of good-enough. For what it's worth, the language at this time is pretty difficult for a drive-by user to change to stuff such as "tourist attraction" that has been a cause of dispute in the past, and I think there's some value in language that does not attract that kind of stuff to this page. Personally, I'm entirely satisfied with the current version of the draft lead – except for one thing, that I raised earlier.
The point about drive-by vandalism is minor, but worthy of consideration, imo. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I still think we should change "some scientists" to, simply, "scientists" in the last paragraph. The way it is now is awfully close to being the same thing as saying "some scientists believe that the Earth is not flat". Here, we are not talking about polls of the general public, and amongst scientists, it's pretty lopsided. Now I'm not saying change it to "all scientists" or "most scientists". Just "scientists". OK? Alternatively, we could also change it to "critics", if that's more acceptable to other editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with your comparison of scientists who are critical of the museum's displays to those who are critical of a flat earth. The fact is that, while nearly all scientists disagree with the overall premise of the museum, most of the reviews by scientists that I found were impressed by the museum's aesthetics, and very few actually commented on inaccuracies between the appearance of the animal and plant models used in the displays and the appearance suggested by the fossil record. Most didn't comment on that specific issue either way. They were more in the vein of "it's a spiffy looking museum, but its premise is all wrong", than "it's a spiffy looking museum, but that plant should have bigger leaves, and that dinosaur should have sharper teeth".
All that said, I think "some critics" could be a workable compromise here. Unquestionably, not all critics commented on the appearance of the models in the displays (since some are religious critics, not scientific critics). If we adopt "critics", I'd suggest changing the first instance of "critics" to "opponents" to avoid repetition. (e.g. "Both supporters and opponents of the museum have generally praised the aesthetic quality of its displays ... but some critics have noted discrepencies in appearance between the musuem's models and the fossil record." Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
That's a good solution. Let's go with "opponents" and "critics". After all, not every source that has raised the issue of the fossil record has been written by a scientist; some were written by journalists, etc. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Done. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  Like. At this point, I support the draft lead 100%. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Done, per lack of opposition here. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

It looks good, but should we have inline citations? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Remaining Controversies and criticisms items

Latest comment: 11 years ago123 comments5 people in discussion

I tread lightly and carefully as I approach this issue, but per WP:CSECTION, I think it would be good if we could clean up the rest of the Controversies and criticisms section. I've clearly identified my biases on the subject, and I think I've made a pretty good show of good faith in how I've edited the article in the past couple of months, so I hope these suggestions will be recognized as a good faith attempt to improve the article consistent with our guidelines and not as an attempt to whitewash the article by some nutty, right-wing, Christian zealot. With that said, I'm going to list the specific items below so that folks can comment on them individually if they want. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Why remove what looks like a reasonable summary of mainstream objections to the museum? . . dave souza, talk 17:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
As I stated above, WP:CSECTION discourages dedicated criticism sections. As you'll notice from the weeks of work I've already put into this article, I've been careful to preserve the most relevant criticisms in the sections of the article where they are most appropriate. This is the first time I've actually proposed deleting any of it. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
That's a good argument against the section title on the basis of the WP:CSECTION essay (which is not a policy), but not for eliminating critical material: a more appropriate title and approach would be the second option listed in the WP:CRIT#Approaches to presenting criticism section of that essay, integrate these points into a Reception section. This would tie in with WP:WEIGHT policy which requires us to show how this pseudoscientific museum has been received. dave souza, talk 17:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I realize it's not a policy, but it's a good guideline, and the idea of eliminating the criticism section is one Tryptofish also endorses. Just calling it something else doesn't really address the problem, which is that the section encourages adding drive-by quotes and anecdotes which may or may not really be that relevant. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
The Creation Museum has been the subject of controversy ever since it was proposed, because the exhibits are based on a young Earth creationist view of the origins of the universe and life.
I think this is rendered redundant by recent edits and can be safely deleted. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
It summarises things well at the start of the section. . dave souza, talk 17:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but if the section is eventually eliminated, which is encouraged by WP:CSECTION, I don't think there is a good place to preserve this elsewhere in the article. That's my point. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm going one-by-one through the specifics now. For this one, I really would like to see us do away with the separate criticism section. Unless there is an objection, I'll try in the next few days to transfer some of the existing section to other parts of the page. I doubt that there is a reason to move this particular sentence somewhere else, so if we do away with the section, then we probably don't need this particular summary sentence. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
NCSE director Eugenie Scott characterized the Creation Museum as "the Creationist Disneyland".
Scott is clearly an opponent of the museum, and her pejorative description does nothing to advance the reader's understanding of it. I propose to delete this. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Scott is a topic expert, with particular reference to science education, and this clearly shows mainstream views of the "museum". . dave souza, talk 17:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
If there are other relevant quotes by Scott that frame the mainstream view academically instead of pejoratively, that might be relevant. As it stands, this is just a pot-shot at the museum and creationists, regardless of the author's academic credentials. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
We have a page about her: Eugenie Scott, and she is clearly both a notable person and an expert on the issue of public education about the creationism/evolution debate. Consequently, having something indicating her views is highly appropriate for this page, and I feel strongly that we need to report something that she has said about the Museum (with her name blue linked). I looked at the source that we quote her from currently, and it's the only quote attributed to her. I found another source: [7]. Maybe we could quote something else that she says, from there, but it seems to me that there really isn't anything with a less pejorative tone. It seems to me that we have to accept the fact that there is a very large segment of mainstream source material that describes the subject of this page in strongly pejorative terms. I believe that WP:NPOV requires us to present that (with proper attribution, of course). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, as of this edit last week, we have Scott on record as being concerned about the effect of the museum on science education. We also have her as executive director of NCSE and have quoted from the statement circulated by NCSE. I think that puts Scott sufficiently on record. Also, it hit me last night that her quote isn't even accurate. The museum is not "creationist Disneyland"; it may be "young Earth creationist Disneyland", but I'm sure Greg Neyman would resent being grouped into her unqualified statement. There's a lot wrong with this quote from the standpoint of an encyclopedia. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Um, but that actually is accurate. Young earth creationism is a form of creationism. And it wouldn't even necessarily matter if it was factually wrong, as a noted expert on religion in science education, her opinion is a reliable source. There is nothing wrong with including this quote in Wikipedia, it follows both the rules and the spirit of the rules.GliderMaven (talk) 17:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
First, I think we have to follow an approach of WP:Verifiability not truth, because if we start removing every quote that is inaccurate in editors' opinions, we are going to have to delete most of the page. The point isn't that Scott is right or wrong, but that this is what she said, and she is notable enough in this subject area that what she says is encyclopedic. But let me make a suggestion. Near the beginning of the Opening and attendance section, we note how the Orlando Sentinel drew attention to the mocking tone of the comments. We could put these things together. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, inaccuracy wasn't my primary reason for proposing to delete this. It was just another reason to add to "it's pejorative", "it doesn't help the reader understand the topic any better", and "we've already noted Scott's opposition earlier". I thought all of these issues, taken together, were enough to eliminate the quote. If the consensus is to keep it, I suppose putting it near the mocking coverage information I added yesterday is the best place for it. I still just have to shake my head, though, that everyone thinks that a cheap-shot zinger, albeit uttered by a noted person, is so vitally important that this article can't be "broad" and "comprehensive" without it. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
The Guardian called the facility "quite possibly […] one of the weirdest museums in the world".
Again, this seems unnecessarily pejorative without adding to the reader's understanding. Delete. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
The Graun's article actually says a great deal more than that, and should be used as an informative mainstream source. . . dave souza, talk 18:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Which items from The Guardian would you propose to include? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I read the source, and what stands out to me is how the author goes through the various exhibits, expressing a negative/skeptical opinion of each of them. I suggest moving away from a list of critical sound bites like this one, and instead, writing about the exhibits. We could choose one or more of the exhibits, and after we describe the exhibit objectively, we could cite this source as expressing criticism of the specific exhibit. Depending on how the writing goes, we might or might not want to end it with something like: ", leading the author to call the museum "one of the weirdest museums in the world". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
OK, now both of you have opined that the Guardian article may contain material of merit, but neither of you have really defended including this quote. Can we now delete the quote with the understanding that other material from that article may be added later? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
A possible variation on the approach. Instead of deleting first and adding later, how about I make some bold edits to the page, with the full understanding that you or Dave or anyone else can feel very free to revert or revise anything that I get wrong? The way that I write, I find it easier to find what I would add in its place when I'm actually making the edits. I respect the way we've been discussing everything before editing, but I'd like to find out if it would be OK if I did this. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
It's fine with me for you to take this approach. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Physicist Lawrence Krauss has called on media, educators, and government officials to shun the museum and says that its view is based on falsehoods.
We've already noted Krauss as a critic earlier in the article. I'm not sure his admonition to these various groups to shun the museum and its views really adds anything. I'm inclined to believe it doesn't but I'm open to reasons it might. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Where? The sole previous mention of Krauss suggests that as a critic, he's praising the quality of the exhibits. This criticism is clearly relevant. . dave souza, talk 17:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
That mention does explicitly call him a critic. In fact, almost every mainstream scientist is a critic of the museum. What does this particular criticism bring to the table that isn't already covered? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
The source emphasized Krauss' concerns about how the ability of people with enough money to build the Museum can present something at odds with science, with a lot of emphasis on the role of money. How about, instead, citing Krauss where the page talks about the financing at the end of the Construction section? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
In the abstract, I'm OK with quoting Krauss in that context, not having seen the specific material you propose to add. Again, I propose that this sentence be deleted with the understanding that something more specific and relevant from Krauss might be added later. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Krauss said that the facility is "as much a disservice to religion as it is to science".
I hadn't heard of Krauss before this article, but his Wikipedia article is categorized with "American atheists". If that is so, why is his assessment of the museum's religious merit worthy of consideration? Inclined to delete. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok, Adams is probably a better source on this aspect. . dave souza, talk 17:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
It might make sense to put this quote with the quotes by Neyman and Adams. What I feel more strongly about is that what we might actually want to delete is the other quote of Krauss, where he speaks positively about the design, because it misleadingly makes it sound like he has a positive opinion of the Museum. We need to be careful about presenting isolated comments that are not representative of what a person has said overall. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Neither of you seem absolutely committed to this quote either, though, and I stand by my original assertion that an atheist really isn't the best authority to quote on the religious merit of the museum. I think this quote should go.
The other mention of Krauss is included to show that even critics concede that the museum is aesthetically well done. I found an expanded quote from Krauss where he said something on the order of "I give it a 4 (out of 5) for technology, a 5 for propaganda, and a negative 5 for content". Would you feel better about it if I added that? I think it merits mention that the critics think the aesthetics are well done, even as they disagree with the premise and message. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
About that quote about 4 out of 5 etc., yes, that's a good idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I'll try to look this up and add it today. Once that's done, are you OK with deleting this quote from Krauss? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Done. May we now delete this quote from Krauss? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Greg Neyman says that "today, the church is comprised of many individuals who accept an old Earth" and "is already moving away from young Earth creationism".
If polls or research show this, it's definitely noteworthy, but this opinion comes from someone who runs a ministry dedicated to Old Earth creationism. I don't think he's an unbiased source or qualified to make this claim absent some hard evidence. Delete. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
It's generally well supported that most Christians aren't YEC, so it does give a relevant view, attributed to its author. . dave souza, talk 17:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Where is it generally well supported that most Christians aren't YEC? As I said, reliable polls and research would be germane. Neyman's opinion, unsupported by such polls and research, is not, since he has a clear and identified bias. Suppose Ham counters by saying most Christians are YEC, which would be in line with his bias. Now it's just "he said, he said" without any facts to support either side. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
For confirmation that most Christians aren't YEC, you could start with sources shown at Level of support for evolution#Support for evolution by religious bodies. If you want to dispute this we can search further, but obviously Ken Ham isn't a reliable source. . . dave souza, talk 17:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Neither is Greg Neyman, and for the same reason. Both men bring biases to the table. That's my point. I'll have a look at the article you mentioned, and if I can find relevant independent polls and data, I'll include them, but that would make an even stronger argument for dropping Neyman's statement. Why quote a source with an obvious bias when you have independent data that show the same (or a similar) thing? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Let's refrain from quoting Neyman on demographics, and instead, quote him on his opinions. I think it's very desirable to include an opinion from someone from OEC commenting on the Museum's version of YEC. It may work better to summarize his concerns that AIG et al. are hurting the image of Christianity amongst non-Christians, instead of a direct quote. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I've already included a lengthy quote from Neyman on his opinions, and from the very same piece this quote is taken from. It sounds like you are in agreement that this particular point from Neyman should go, though. At least, that's how I read your statement which says, "Let's refrain from quoting Neyman on demographics". Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
If we have agreement about it, yes, I meant that we would be better off not including his quote about demographics. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
@Dave souza: Are you OK with cutting this, as Tryptofish and I have agreed on? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
The Rev. Mendle Adams, pastor of St. Peter's United Church of Christ in Cincinnati, Ohio, joined others, both secularists and Christians, at protests at the museum's opening. He said "my brothers and sisters in the faith who embrace [the creationist] understanding call into question the whole Christian concept" and "make us a laughing stock".
It may or may not be notable that Adams was present at the "Rally for Reason" protest, but his objections are strongly similar to those expressed by Michael Patrick Leahy earlier in the article. Since it seems likely that Adams is in the theistic evolutionist camp and his quote brings nothing new from that camp, we can delete this as redundant. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
TE is clearly the mainstream position and should be shown as such: why confine it to one representative? . . dave souza, talk 17:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Again, where is it made "clear" in reliable sources that TE is clearly the mainstream position? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Leahy is quoted in the Beliefs section, and actually, we may want to move some of the criticisms in that section elsewhere, perhaps. But anyway, I think that the Opening section should be revised to move the Rally for Reason material to its own paragraph, maybe a little later in the section. Adams should be quoted there, along with Neyman and maybe Krauss. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, I suppose the second paragraph of the Beliefs section could be moved into the Opening section, since the events detailed therein occured just prior to the opening. I put them where they are as a means of foregrounding the scientific opposition to the museum (which I figured the critics would appreciate) and to contrast that with the public opinion polling that follows. I still think this quote is redundant with Leahy and Haught, who we've used to present the TE position, and who basically say the same thing. Quoting Adams has the additional potential problem of implying that his views reflect those of the entire United Church of Christ, which they may or may not; I really don't know. He was probably quoted because he was local to the museum and because he was at the rally. By contrast, Haught is apparently well-known nationally and internationally, and his position seems to be consistent with the official teachings of the Catholic church. That's a big difference. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Lisa Park, a professor of paleontology at University of Akron who is also an Elder in the Presbyterian Church was particularly disturbed by the museum's depiction that war, famine and natural disasters are the result of a belief in evolution. She stated, "I think it's very bad science and even worse theology… and the theology is far more offensive to me. I think there's a lot of focus on fear, and I don't think that's a very Christian message. […] I find it a malicious manipulation of the public."
I'm a little torn on this one because I don't know how much weight to give Park's religious opinion. Clearly, she has some non-trivial religious affiliation, but does that make her opinion especially relevant? Does this confirm or conflict with the Presbyterian Church's official position (if, indeed, it has one) on YEC and the Creation Museum? We don't want to represent this as the church's viewpoint if it has taken no stand or a contrary stand, but if being an elder in the church gives Park a high enough standing that her opinion is noteworthy, it could probably be worked into the article elsewhere. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
It's a published and reasonable position, pointing to the theological difficulties presented by YEC, looks well worthwhile. . dave souza, talk 17:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
It's published as a quote in an article that focuses on lots of people who were critical of the museum. Whether or not it's reasonable is not for us to decide, really. The question is whether it's relevant and helpful to understand the museum (not, by the way, the creationism vs. evolution debate; that's another article). Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
An elder in a Presbyterian Church is a minor local personage (a member of the "session" in charge of an individual congregation), and is not actually qualified in any respect to speak for the General Assembly or for the church in general.[8] "Presbyterian" basically means "run by elders." [9] implies that there are more than 80 thousand elders in the US Presbyterian church (PCUSA). The use here is misleading at best, alas. Collect (talk) 17:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
This is the kind of clarification that I, as a Southern Baptist with little understanding of Presbyterian hierarchy, was looking for. It sounds comparable to quoting a deacon in a Baptist church; that wouldn't be representative of the views of the entire Baptist denomination. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
She's cited as a professor of paleontology at University of Akron, the fact that she's an elder indicates that she is a respected member of her church. Out of interest, what is the Kirk's stand on young Earth creationism? . . dave souza, talk 18:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, as Collect points out above, she's a respected member of her local congregation. Does that mean she's a respected member within the larger denomination? Would the denominational leadership agree with her assessment? How do we know? Also, as I'm not familiar with the term "the Kirk", I'm unable to respond to that query. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
The operative documents are the historic Westminster Confession of Faith in general, and a supplemental Confession of 1967 which added a great deal of "social issue" material. The latter does not affect the theology of the former with regard to the nature of the Bible AFAICT. "Kirk" refers expressly to the Scottish church, and is inapplicable here. Collect (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I see no reason to put her quote in a quote box. But her concerns seem to me to fit very appropriately with the section of the page where we have the photo of the wrecking ball. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Agree on the quote box, and if this material is kept, it probably belongs in the fourth paragraph under Arrangment, right before or right after the Zovath quote. I think that's the area of the museum it refers to. Still, I have the same issue with this as I have with Adams (i.e. that this opinion of a relatively low-ranking person within the overall Presbyterian denomination will be interpreted by the reader as the position of the denomination itself, which it may or may not be). I think that's a very valid concern. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm thinking about making subsections for each exhibit within the Arrangement section, and maybe renaming the section to "Exhibits". I think that would make it easier to integrate commentaries about each exhibit. Does that seem reasonable? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I was already thinking about subsections under Arrangement, although I think the section name ought to stay. It's already a subheading under "Displays and exhibits", so changing it to "Exhibits" would be redundant. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
The whole issue of dinosaurs coming from birds.
We have a whole paragraph about this, but I'm not sure it's really worthy of comment. YEC clearly and completely rejects macroevolution, so the fact that it specifically rejects the notion that dinosaurs evolved into birds should hardly be surprising. On the flip side, since macroevolution is the scientific consensus and an apparently large majority of evolutionists seem to believe that dinosaurs did evolve into birds, it's not surprising that those folks should take issue with the museum on that point. I'm inclined to delete this as redundant. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Eh, birds are avian dinosaurs. This aspect should be covered in the article, not necessarily in this section. The Design or Arrangement sections look appropriate. . .dave souza, talk 17:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I can see potentially moving it there. I'd be interested to hear if others think it is distinct enough from the overall creationism vs. evolution debate to merit inclusion, though. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Why should it be distinct from the overall "debate"? It's specific misinformation in this museum, which should be covered. . dave souza, talk 17:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
The section on Design and acquisition already covers the dinosaurs shown with humans. We don't need to keep the sentences about birds verbatim, but we should summarize that issue in the Design section. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
OK, I'm willing to accept the "move and summarize" solution here. I think a whole paragraph is too much, but a sentence or two at most summarizing the issue is fine, especially since the issue is explicitly raised by one of the exhibits. Feel free to take a stab at this, or I'll try to get around to it soon. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
We agree here. If you and other editors are OK with me making some "bold" edits, I'll be happy to give it a try. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Please do. The source indicates that this exhibit is in the second room. By my reckoning, that would be the room with "placards explaining various natural phenomena using two distinct 'starting points'", which seems to make some sense. I suggest the revised information be located immediately after that. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
A. A. Gill's opinion
We also have a short paragraph dedicated to A. A. Gill's opinion of the museum. Now, being an American, I have no idea who A. A. Gill is, but his wiki-article describes him as a British restaurant and television critic. I'm trying to reserve judgment, since maybe this isn't the most proper characterization of him, but if it's accurate, what in the world is his opinion doing here, and short of commenting on the museum's cafeteria, why did he feel compelled to write about it in the first place? Without satisfactory answers to this question, I'd say delete. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
A. A. Gill is a Vanity Fair contributing editor, a journalist who's written a descriptive and entertaining piece about the place. Odd that you think he should have to be compelled to write about it, the article clearly notes that he visited during commemoration of the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, taking along Paul Bettany, the actor who plays Charles Darwin in the new film Creation. Seems pretty reasonable. . dave souza, talk 18:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
OK, now we now why he was there, but we still don't know what qualifies him to write about how it is "without soul" or to what degree it conflicts with mainstream science. Best leave those judgments to the scientists and theologians instead of food critics. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
It's part of the general reception from a reputable journalist, possibly best under "media". . dave souza, talk 17:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
So I suppose if we can find reaction from actors, sportspeople, heads of state, etc. we should include them as part of the "general reception" because they are reputable in their respective fields (which have nothing to do with the material presented in the museum). I don't think so. Not everyone's reaction is important, regardless of how well known they may be. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Unlike actors etc., Gill was assigned by a significant secondary source to write about the Museum. Much as with the Guardian piece, he goes through the various exhibits, and I suggest that we treat him as we treat that source. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I still think it's silly to quote this person just because we can. This isn't his area of expertise, and we have plenty of commentary from the experts available. If there is something in this piece specific to a particular exhibit that is worthwhile, I might be OK with including that, I guess, but just giving a couple of sweeping generalizations from someone who has no discernable qualifications to make them doesn't seem productive to me. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
How about my suggestion higher up, about grouping some of the more mocking comments together, in a paragraph noting the trend of mocking? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't think the Gill quotes presently in the article qualify as "mocking" necessarily, but I'm sure that there probably are some that would fit better. Again, if we're insistent on quoting a food critic just because we can – and I still think that's more than a little silly – I guess that's the best way to do it. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
"Date night"
I actually moved this to Promotions, but I want to comment on it here. As I read this, it was an intentional provocation by a blogger, who used it to manufacture a controversy and stir up the media. I don't see how it has any enduring encyclopedic value, but again, if someone feels it does, let's discuss. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
As it appears now, it's been written to minimise the points raised, but seems sufficiently newsworthy as a controversy about the museum. . . dave souza, talk 18:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
How does it minimize the "points raised"? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Wherever it goes, Promotions is the wrong place for it. It's simply not about promoting the Museum. Maybe it belongs in Opening and attendance, as an event that arose in connection with attendance. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree this shouldn't be it's final home, if it stays. I actually think the whole Promotions section can be absorbed into other parts of the article. That's on my to-do list. I just don't happen to think that an anecdote about a blogger who essentially punk'd the museum as a publicity stunt is particularly encyclopedic. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, let's absorb that section into other sections. (I'm even wondering whether we could do that with the Beliefs section. What do you think of that?) I would be fine with reducing this incident to just a sentence or so. (On the other hand, do we need such a long paragraph about the TV show that you just added? Just asking.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
My intention with the Beliefs section was to foreground the disagreement between science and YEC, deal with it honestly, and move on. I felt like that would reduce the urge to coatrack the discussion everywhere throughout the article. I'm not sure that's really how it's played out in practice, since there seems to be an insistence on adding criticism on each and every exhibit mentioned, but at least that's easier to keep on topic by limiting it to just the exhibit being discussed. I still think the Beliefs section may serve the purpose of discouraging drive-by coatracking, though, and I'd prefer to leave it. As Dave mentioned below, "the reader shouldn't have to wade through lots of contested points to be clear about how this museum has been received". The Beliefs section makes it clear at the outset that, overall, this museum isn't respected among the experts.
If we are to keep the blogger incident, I'm fine with reducing it's size as long as it remains clear that this was an act deliberately planned to cause controversy. It wasn't some random misunderstanding or overzealous response by security.
Finally, regarding the paragraph about 19 Kids and Counting, I'm of the opinion that, if an appearance in the media is worth mentioning, it's worth giving some detail so we can see how the subject was treated in that medium. You'll notice that I also expanded the size of the other media mentions when I moved them to their own section so the reader knows more than just "this subject was mentioned in this medium" but "what this medium said about the subject". I find it really annoying when the "In the media" section of an article is a bulleted list with items like (for some fictional examples) "In season 3 of The Simpsons, Homer drives past the Creation Museum on his way to a Reds game", "In the song <insert song name>, <insert C-list band> mentions the Creation Museum", and "Jay Leno made a joke about the Creation Museum in his monologue on Frumptober 34, 2055". Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

General approach

First of all, I applaud Acdixon for what has been, all along, a very good faith approach to all of this. That said, I'd like to make some suggestions about how to handle these issues overall, as opposed to responding to them one-by-one. First, I think that it's important to give significant coverage to criticism, given the WP:FRINGE aspects of the subject – subject to the caveat that criticisms should be included only if they are presented in the source material as criticism of the CM, and not criticism of YEC, etc., in general. On a quick read, I think that everything above may pass that test, so please let's go very slow about deleting any of it. Second, I agree with Acdixon that we should work towards moving criticism out of a separate "criticism" section, so, instead of deleting criticisms, I'd like to look at finding places where they could be moved, in the other sections of the page. We have a lot of content about the exhibits now, so I'd like to put each criticism after the exhibit to which it most closely relates. Third, we should also be looking at adding material, not just deleting it. I'll try to help by looking for some additional sources, but it won't happen right away. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with any of this per se, but here's what I'd add. Clearly, the subject of this article falls into WP:FRINGE, and a healthy amount of criticism is fair under Wikipedia guidelines. I'm concerned, though, that editors are using this as a license to find a quote critical of the museum and include it willy-nilly, so that the article just becomes a lot of piling on by various quoted entities. I think the following guidelines should inform which criticisms are left and which are removed:
  1. Is this person qualified to present the criticism? I've raised this issue with a couple of the items above. Why should we care what an atheist thinks about the religious merit of the museum's displays? Why should we care what a food critic thinks of the scientific value of the displays? A lot of different folks, including random bloggers, have written all kinds of criticisms about the museum. We need to first be discerning about whose opinion we include on what subjects.
  2. Does this material examine issues that aren't raised by other critics? Take, for example, the age of the Earth. We already have a statement that scientific consensus holds the age of the Earth to be 4.5 billion years, and the fact that the museum claims it is only 6,000-10,000 years old. Is it necessary to then quote 15 different scientists who take issue with the museum's claims? I don't think so. We already have the broad fact of the disagreement established. Having quotes from 15 different scientists doesn't bring anything new to the table.
  3. Can we cite groups, organizations, etc. instead of individuals for a particular criticism? Rather than quoting numerous authorities on the same issue, can we quote a statement by an organization or the head of an organization of like-minded people to show that there is a (presumably) large number of people who feel the same way? We've done this with NCSE, Greg Neyman, and Edwin Kagan. All of these are either organizations or heads of organizations. By contrast, Mendle Adams and Lisa Park are leaders of individual congregations that may or may not represent the views of the larger denominations with which they are associated. (I certainly hope nobody thinks the nutjobs at Westboro Baptist Church speak for all Baptists, for example.)
I hope these make sense to everyone. Again, I'm not trying to whitewash this article, but I am trying to prevent it from being a WP:COATRACK for the evolution vs. creationism debate, and I'm also trying to keep it from reading like a list of quotes from critics. You'll note above that I've left open the possibility of moving some of these criticisms into other sections, but some others, like the pejorative comments from Eugenie Scott and The Guardian, don't add anything to the reader's understanding of the topic, in my opinion. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I think that those are very valid and helpful distinctions to make, and I pretty much agree with you. When I was thinking about adding additional sources, what I actually had in mind was secondary sources, such as news reports, in which criticisms were summarized, thus filtering the material through the evaluation by reliable secondary sources as to what is or isn't noteworthy. I think that's actually quite consistent with what you are talking about. Bottom line: better to cite expert sources and secondary sources, instead of the random blog that shows up on a Google search. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I think we are on the same track here, but I'm not sure all the items I proposed for discussion above satisfy those criteria. Yes, in many cases, the quotes were reported in reliable sources, but they weren't really evaluated by those sources. The sources simply reflect the fact that the statements were made. And when those statements aren't helpful in better understanding the topic of the museum itself, I don't think they really belong in the article. I'm all for expansion of the kind you are talking about, though, critical and otherwise. I searched the edition of Newsbank I have access to for all mentions of the museum and AiG, and added what I thought was relevant. HighBeam would probably be helpful here, too, but my free one-year access has expired. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I'll look more closely, both at the list above, to see whether in fact there are some I would delete, and for more sources, but probably not right away. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Similarly, it doesn't help to understand the topic of the article if we exclude reasonable statements. I too won't be able to do much on this immediately, but am concerned that pruning sources should not go too far. We really can't expect many major studies on this museum to be published. . . dave souza, talk 17:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
This has never been about "excluding reasonable statements". As you can see from my work over the past couple of months, I've preserved a good bit of the criticism section by moving it to other, more relevant parts of the article. In many cases, I've expanded that material, and, as you can see immediately below, I've even added some new criticism. Every step of the way, I've submitted major changes for comment at least a week in advance. All of this was to ensure that the pruning didn't go too far. I just don't happen to think that every single item of criticism in the current article is helpful. I don't think that's an unreasonable claim. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Happily, my HighBeam access was renewed today (thanks, @Ocaasi:!) so I'm now able to access far more sources than before. Obviously, reviewing them will take some time, but I've already found one source that allowed me to make this edit, which shows a) I'm not opposed to including new, relevant criticism, and b) how I feel the criticism is most effectively presented (throughout the body of the article, citing statements from large groups of experts as opposed to collecting lots of quotes from individual experts). Hopefully, this shows a concrete example of what I'm trying to do here. Thoughts? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

At first glance, it looks ok. However, it highlighted synthesis which I've removed: the poll makes no mention of the museum. Indeed, it makes no specific mention of young Earth creationism: the belief that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years is entirely compatible with old earth Creationism, or even views that accept evololution of organisms other than humans. I don't think it's needed at all, but if we do want to show something we need a source specifically relating this to the museum. . dave souza, talk 18:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh, COME ON! I've already hashed this out above regarding its presence in the lead. While the poll makes no mention of the museum, it clearly represents people's attitudes about the beliefs presented therein. It is absolutely both relevant and essential to understanding the topic. Without it, one wonders how this nutty little museum (according to the mainstream sources) has drawn so much money and so many visitors. Many, MANY of the reliable sources I've looked at cite this or similar polling when reporting on the museum for exactly this reason. The views outlined in the poll are far more associated with YEC than any other worldview. Even the pathetic WP:COATRACK version of the article I started with included polling figures similar to this. It wasn't even part of the addition I was trying to highlight above; it's always been there. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Good, you should have no difficulty in finding a reliable source specifically referring to the museum and presenting a claim about polling, rather than presenting a synthesis based on an ambiguous poll of the U.S. public. . dave souza, talk 20:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
The very first result I get in Highbeam (subscription or trial required, sorry) is a story from The Sunday Independent (South Africa), which says, "The construction of the museum was funded by private donations. In other words, in a country where the evolution-versus-creation debate is alive and raging, there are plenty of Americans ready to embrace Ham and support his museum. A recent Gallup poll in America showed nearly 50 percent of people accepting the notion that, 'God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10 000 years or so'." Here the very poll in question is clearly presented as an explanation for why Ham and the Creation Museum are so popular – and received so many donations – in the United States. Q.E.D., no? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 21:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Although I was willing to compromise about the lead when the discussion seemed to be going against what I was saying, I remain sympathetic to what Dave is saying here. I think that the paragraph, as it had been written, did not make sufficiently clear its relevance to the Museum. I would be fine, however, with putting back a rewritten paragraph, based on that Sunday Independent source, but written with an emphasis on where donations to the Museum come from. The point should not be to show how much popular support there is for YEC generally, but to explain why, according to that source, it is possible for the Museum to gain so many donations. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
OK, if the majority really thinks the connection here wasn't obvious before, I'll try to re-factor the paragraph in light of the Sunday Independent. That said, the comments by Greg Neyman and Mendle Adams in the criticism section are also about YEC and not the museum specifically. If the percentages of people in the U.S. who subscribe to tenets of YEC only matters when I reliable source links it to museum support, then Neyman's claim that Christians are moving away from YEC and Adams' claim that Christians who support YEC make other Christians a laughingstock can't be relevant for this article either. To argue otherwise is logically inconsistent. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Please correct me if I misunderstand, but I thought that what Adams said, he said at a protest at the Museum. If that is the case, then he was saying it in the direct context of the Museum. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I went and checked the sources myself. The sources make it clear that these comments were directly related to the Museum. Neyman was commenting in a piece that he wrote about the opening of the Museum. Adams commented about his planned participation in protests at the Museum. I've restored the comments, but I revised the descriptions of their contexts to reflect what the sources say about the relationships of the comments to the subject of the page. Just as I support including the public opinion data so long as we make it clear that a source relates those data to donations to the Museum, I believe these criticisms belong on the page so long as we make clear that sources say that the criticisms were made about the Museum. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
If it didn't matter that reporting on the museum prompted newspapers to mention polls about YEC, then it shouldn't matter that protests of the museum prompted these quotes. It wasn't enough that many newspapers saw the connection implicitly; I was bidden to find a source that explicitly connected the polling to museum support. I did that. I think these quotes should be held to the same standard. Why does it matter, in the context of the museum, that the church is moving away from YEC (if, in fact, it actually is)? Why does it matter, in the context of the museum, that one random pastor in Cincinnati thinks that belief in YEC makes Christianity into a laughing stock? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
As I see it, Neyman's comment is explicitly connected to the Museum because he wrote it as part of a piece about his views concerning the opening of the Museum, and Adams' comment is explicitly connected to the Museum because he said it about his intentions to protest the Museum. Rightly or wrongly, each of them indicated in the source material that what they said was, in their opinions, about the Museum. I'm following the source material. Yes, a Wikipedia editor can reasonably say that the Museum may make itself a laughing stock without making all of Christianity a laughing stock. I understand that. And I would never support saying these opinions in Wikipedia's voice. But the fact that a secondary source chose to quote that pastor as saying it takes it out of being "random" for Wikipedia's purposes. You aren't going to see me try to argue that we should now delete the Gallup poll because probably only a small number of benefactors really paid for most of the Museum; the fact that a columnist presented the poll as the reason why the Museum gets the support that it does is what makes it not SYNTH for our purposes. (And I'm not even complaining about the sentence that says that public opinion has been that way since long before the Museum was even planned.) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)--Tryptofish (talk) 17:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I've edited it as the poll itself is valid for confirming "that almost half of Americans agreed with the statement", but the other statements are offtopic and don't add useful info. This is an article about a YEC exercise, the proportions holding to TE or non-theistic evo aren't relevant. Unless, of course, someone has a secondary source showing the relevance of these statements to the Creation Museum. . . dave souza, talk 18:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

So you're arguing above that "[Theistic evolution] is clearly the mainstream position [in Christianity] and should be shown as such" when talking about Adams' quote, but when it comes to polls that show TE isn't the mainstream view among the public at large, it's not relevant? Interesting. Not sure what kind of mental gymnastics lead to that conclusion.
To be honest, this is all getting to be more than a little frustrating. I've done my dead-level best to improve this article to talk about the museum and keep it from becoming a WP:COATRACK for the evolution vs. creationism debate. That was supposedly everyone's goal. By all accounts, as nearly as I can tell, everyone has agreed that my edits have been evenhanded, despite my personal beliefs, which I acknowledged up front multiple times. I preserved the majority of the criticism section and even added a good bit of criticism of my own volition, which I think shows my willingness to acknowledge that my view is not the mainstream. But, honest to goodness, the fact that everyone here seems to think that every last criticism – no matter how condescending, no matter who said it, no matter whether it brings anything new to the table or not – is not only piercingly relevant but so blindingly essential to this article that the mere suggestion of its deletion is met with absolute rejection and no willingness to compromise is starting to get old. Yes, this topic is WP:FRINGE and that means its viewpoint doesn't get absolutely equal weight with the criticism it recieves, but if we deleted everything that's left in the criticism section right now, does anybody really think a fair-minded reader is going to read the article and be left with the impression that this is anything other than a fringe topic? (That's not a rhetorical question. I want answers with reasons.) Are we trying to make a better article, or are we just trying to make sure we pack as much criticism as possible into this article because it's a fringe topic? If we're just here to see how many quotes and viewpoints we can add that hold that this museum is a joke, then I've obviously been misled. I had thought this might, at some point, go to WP:GAC or WP:FAC as an example of how Wikipedia can be fair to out-of-the-mainstream topics, but making sure that the reader has to wade through every criticism that can be defended as remotely relevant isn't going to accomplish that. Ensuring that the article makes it clear that the topic is fringe should be enough. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 19:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I am sincerely sorry that you feel that way. Speaking only for myself, of course, I feel that what I said was simply going by the sources. I'm not trying to win a debate. I think that you could see that I was quite receptive to compromise throughout the discussion of the lead. Where you said, "no matter how condescending", I never thought of any of this content as expressing that, and I think that you may be taking personally the fact that people in the source material have said things that are predictable for FRINGE subject matter. For me, none of the editing was personal or intended to offend. You ask for answers with reasons. That's very appropriate. I'm going to take a day or two to think about it, so that I'm not simply giving a gut reaction, and I'm going to ponder carefully whether I might have been mistaken about anything. I know that I can make mistakes. I hope that you understand, and that you do not feel badly about any of this. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm also planning on taking the weekend off from this article. I should be back around on Monday. We'll see how everyone feels again then, I guess. The one point I want to make clear right now is that "condescending" was specifically aimed at the quotes from Eugenie Scott and The Guardian above. I can't believe anyone thinks that adds anything to the article. Until next week. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 21:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I wish you a good weekend, too. I think that giving it a little time can help make consensus easier. (I didn't realize that you meant Scott; I'll definitely take a serious look there.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
A couple of points. I appreciate that this article is about the museum and should not become a WP:COATRACK for the evolution vs. creationism debate, unfortunately synthesising new views from a poll which doesn't mention the museum is classic coatracking to promote a viewpoint. Also note that Christianity isn't confined to the U.S.. . dave souza, talk 21:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I think we've established that I'm not synthesizing now that a reliable source has made the connection. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 21:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Good, we seem to be in agreement that the current wording is ok, as it doesn't go beyond the conclusions shown in the secondary source. . dave souza, talk 17:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I can live with the current wording, although I still think at least the bit about the polls consistently showing support for YEC tenets over the past 30 years is a defensible inclusion, since it shows that the support that made the museum possible in the US is not something that's come about lately. I also found polling data on Highbeam that shows how the US is an anomaly compared to other industrialized nations in terms of the relative support for evolution and creationism. I had thought to include that, with the idea that it shows the museum could probably only have been successful in the US, but given the opposition to even the polling I previously included, I guess I'll leave that out, too.
I still contend, though, that arguing against inclusion of polling data showing theistic evolution as a minority view among the US public while simultaneously arguing that one pastor's comment about TE being a widely held view in Christianity should be included because "[Theistic evolution] is clearly the mainstream position and should be shown as such" is logically inconsistent. Why is TE's support among one group (the US population) irrelevant but among another group (professing Christians) so relevant that it must be included? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
The polls and the questions are rather ambiguous on which positions are being supported, and my understanding remains that theistic evolution is regarded as the mainstream religious view. This issue is obviously broader than this one article. Of course the situation is much more clear-cut in science. . dave souza, talk 17:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC) Oh, and as for consistent support, it should be seen in the context that YEC was very much a minority position before 1960, as Numbers indicates. A remarkable achievement getting to a steady 45% approx. in Gallup polls so swiftly, though the question is compatible with variants of OEC and possibly even TE, so some blurring there. . dave souza, talk 17:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm willing to grant you some "ambiguity" and "blurring", although I suspect we would disagree on its potential magnitude. I'm also willing to accept your rationale about consistent support, since what I've read seems to suggest that events like the publishing of The Genesis Flood in 1961 had a pretty significant impact on the acceptance of YEC, so that time frame matches up and pre-dates the Gallup polling. So, as I said, I can live with the polling information as-is, but whether TE is the mainstream religious view or not is irrelevant to the museum, really. As you say, this issue is broader than this one article, and perhaps Adams' quote would be at home in one of the related articles, but not here. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is based on showing majority expert views, not on polls of the uninformed public, and even polls show a more complex position.[10] Hence the need for secondary sources discussing the implications of polls for the specific topic. . dave souza, talk 21:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
The "uninformed public" is relevant here because they are the ones going to the museum, by and large; not the scientists. The position of the scientists is made abundantly clear as well in this article, though. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 21:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Don't think there's any specific disagreement here, in general terms articles are based on published expert views, not views shown in opinion polls. I think we're agreed that YEC is a significant minority view in the U.S., with wide public support. . . dave souza, talk 17:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
More generally, the reader shouldn't have to wade through lots of contested points to be clear about how this museum has been received, which is why a reception section has advantages. . dave souza, talk 21:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I think both the lead and the body make it clear how the museum was received – not well among the scientific community and dissenters to YEC, somewhat better among the general public. Anyway, as I said above, have a good weekend. We'll discuss next week. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 21:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough about further discussion, a minor point is that "dissenters to YEC" is rather odd wording: don't think the Roman Caholic Church and the Church of England, to name two, view themselves as dissenters. Historically, dissenter has a more specific meaning. . dave souza, talk 17:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Question

On each of the items above, I ask myself this: had this information not already been in the article, would I have felt it was necessary to add it if you I found it myself? If so, why? That was the logic I used in determining what to move into other sections of the article (which was half or more of the criticism section as I found it) and what to propose for deletion. I feel like the impulse is to resist deleting some of these criticisms just because deleting something that was already there doesn't feel right. Again, I ask the question – which nobody really ever answered, despite my request that they do so – if everything in the present criticism section was deleted, would any fair-minded reader not privy to these discussions argue that the topic was presented as anything other than WP:FRINGE? As a follow-up, would they feel it was not "broad" or "comprehensive" without these items? Why or why not? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Please understand what I'm about to say as a "first attempt" at a reply, rather than as anything remotely approaching a definitive answer. Your question is a good one. You said: "the impulse is to resist deleting some of these criticisms just because deleting something that was already there doesn't feel right." That's quite accurate in my case. Seeing a long list of criticisms that are currently on the page, presented as a request to delete them all, read to me as an extensive removal of content that has one POV, without a corresponding adjustment with respect to NPOV. For me, a big part of the reason why I've been kind of slow and maybe even clumsy in answering your question here goes to the same reason why I suggested above that I try to make some edits myself. And I'm happy to see that you said that you support my doing that. And maybe, once I start digging into the editing, I'll see things differently. For better or worse, it's easier for me to evaluate these things after digging in, instead of just reading talk, as helpful as this talk has been. I've read all of the replies you've made to my comments above, and all edits that I plan to make will be consistent with those discussions. I'll almost certainly get some things wrong, but I'd like to re-assess where we stand after I make some bold edits, because I think that it will be easier to come to agreement then. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Some comments

Latest comment: 11 years ago28 comments4 people in discussion

Ok, I read through the article (after a request on my talk page) and I have a few thoughts on some possible improvements. Overall I think the article is in pretty good shape. I've read all but the "arrangement" subsection thus far. I'll hopefully get to that soon. I haven't read any of the discussions above, so this may duplicate some comments that are already dealt with there.

  • As far as the lead goes, I'd note that the museum doesn't contain artifacts. Also maybe note that the museum is active is social issues as well, since gay marriage comes up in a few sections.
    • The bit about artifacts is well-taken; I'll work on that. It should say it doesn't have many artifacts, though. There are some actual fossils and animals, but they are interpreted differently than in most natural history museums, obviously. I'm not sure how much to make of the social issues. The museum officially endorses "traditional marriage", linking it to Adam and Eve, but that only really affects the pledge employees sign and the blogger stunt, as far as I can tell so far. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • "Since its opening, the museum has added attractions such as a petting zoo, a zip line and sky bridge course, and a bug exhibit." Perhaps this would flow better earlier in the lead.
  • I don't think you should mention public opinion polling in the lead. I think there should be some background about the context of the discussion that the museum takes part in though. Maybe add some history of AiG?
    • The bit about public opinion polling has been discussed (and is still being discussed a bit, I think) above. I'd encourage you to read that discussion and weigh in where appropriate. Not sure about adding AiG history. Too far off-topic? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I think the issue is that there is a large creationist constituency in the U.S. providing supporters for the museum: no need to mention polls, a brief statement can be based on the source in the body text. . dave souza, talk 17:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd be generally OK with that. I thought couching it in terms of the polling left it less open to challenge, but it is supported by polling data in the body, so I'm not going to quibble over that. I'll attempt a re-phrase. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Done. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if you should keep the part about Ham's repudiation of intelligent design in the "beliefs" section.
    • Since creationism and ID are often linked but are distinct schools of thought, I thought it helpful to differentiate them, although I'm open to doing it in ways that don't involve this quote by Ham. It was just the first thing I found. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
ID is a variant of creationism, and one that developed from YEC creation science, which had already gone a considerable way towards omitting biblical references to avoid constitutional law. The "big tent" of ID includes YECs in prominent positions, but the main ID leaders are OEC. So, interrelated but not the same, and disowned by Ham. However, these sentences seem to be about Ham and AiG, not about the museum, so unless a source relates the issue to the museum they seem to be offtopic. . dave souza, talk 17:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
That's slicing the bologna pretty thin to me. The fact that Ham and AiG are primarily responsible for the museum and they have gone out of their way to make it clear that their object as a ministry – which includes the museum – is not to promote ID but YEC, I think we should give some acknowledgement to that. It doesn't have to be this particular quote, I suppose. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Also, I'm not sure if the definition of the three creationist positions needs to be attributed like this, maybe go with "AiG's stance in favor of Young Earth creationism has garnered criticism from individuals who adhere to Old Earth creationism and theistic evolution"
    • I only included this to show that all related flavors of creationism are being covered by the article, a nod to "broadness" and/or "comprehensiveness". I actually thought about spelling out – very briefly – what OEC and TE believe, so that they can be contrasted with YEC and each other. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
The emphasis on individuals seems to give undue weight to the YEC position: perhaps best "believers in" OEC and TE. It could be helpful to have a very concise statement of how these beliefs differ from YEC. .dave souza, talk 17:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Not sure how the emphasis on individuals gives undue weight to YEC. I'm OK with "believers in" as opposed to "individuals who adhere to". I'll look up this article again and add the differences in the worldviews as concisely as I can. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Done. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
The issue is that Darwin established evolution through common descent in science, modern evolutionary theory has developed from that basis and naming Darwin is a bit misleading. . dave souza, talk 17:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, since this information is couched in terms of the museum adding a Darwin exhibit, it's difficult to avoid mentioning him by name, but if you can suggest a rewrite that is more accurate, I'd be willing to consider that. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for giving this a read, Mark. I've left some comments inline above. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • The lead wording "These and other ideas presented in the museum contradict scientific consensus, prompting scientists and educators to condemn the museum, its worldview, and AiG. Proponents of other non-secular theories of universal origin " seems rather distorted: suggest "These and other ideas presented in the museum contradict scientific consensus, and scientists and educators have objected to the effects the museum and AiG teachings have on science education. Proponents of non-YEC religious beliefs about origins". . Note that theistic evolution is generally secular as far a science education is concerned, though obviously it's part of a religious viewpoint. . dave souza, talk 17:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't immediately see anything in this suggestion I have a problem with, but since Tryptofish was pretty active in shaping the lead as is, I'll wait to see what he thinks. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
OK, I'm here. (By the way, with all the indents and threads throughout this talk page, I keep worrying that I'm overlooking something, so if someone feels there's something where I haven't replied but should have, please tell me.) Here, the only change that makes sense to me is changing "to condemn", which strikes me as needlessly flowery, to "to object to". I'd support that. I'm neutral about the other parts of it, not opposed, just don't have a strong opinion at all. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b Kelly, Casey Ryan (2012). "Genesis in Hyperreality: Legitimizing Disingenuous Controversy at the Creation Museum". Argumentation and Advocacy. 48 (3): 123–141. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  2. ^ "List of Accredited Museums" (PDF). American Alliance of Museums. August 2013. Retrieved September 11, 2013.
  3. ^ Jennings, Gretchen (2011). "Creationist "Museums" Are Not Museums" (PDF). Exhibitionist. National Association of Museum Exhibition. Retrieved September 11, 2013. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  4. ^ Ham, Ken (June 7, 2013). "Assistant Manager at Cincinnati Museum Center Derides Creation Museum". Around the World with Ken Ham. Answers in Genesis. Retrieved September 11, 2013.
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Creation_Museum/Archive_3&oldid=599000542"