Talk:Ark Encounter/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

co-existence of man and dinosaurs

The phrase "co-existence of man and dinosaurs" in the Lede currently links to the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event. Why?

That article specifies that among the extinct were "the non-avian dinosaurs". It goes out of its way to explain that dinosaurs (as a whole) survived the event and are represented currently by the birds. Quoting:

"Most paleontologists regard birds as the only surviving dinosaurs (see Origin of birds). It is thought that all non-avian theropods became extinct, including then-flourishing groups such as enantiornithines and hesperornithiforms. Several analyses of bird fossils show divergence of species prior to the K–Pg boundary, and that duck, chicken, and ratite bird relatives coexisted with non-avian dinosaurs. Large collections of bird fossils representing a range of different species provides definitive evidence for the persistence of archaic birds to within 300,000 years of the K–Pg boundary. The absence of these birds in the Paleogene is evidence that a mass extinction of archaic birds took place there. A small fraction of the Cretaceous bird species survived the impact, giving rise to today's birds. The only bird group known for certain to have survived the K–Pg boundary is the Aves. Avians may have been able to survive the extinction as a result of their abilities to dive, swim, or seek shelter in water and marshlands. Many species of avians can build burrows, or nest in tree holes or termite nests, all of which provided shelter from the environmental effects at the K–Pg boundary. Long-term survival past the boundary was assured as a result of filling ecological niches left empty by extinction of non-avian dinosaurs. Dimadick (talk) 06:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Regardless of the content of the linked article, this looks like a case of WP:EASTEREGG to me. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the link, thanks for pointing it out. —PaleoNeonate – 05:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The article was linked as a good faith attempt to explain why man-dinosaur coexistance is referred to as pseudoscience in this article, rather than leaving it at face value. But there isn't an article specifically explaining that dinosaurs and man didn't co-exist. The KT extinction article is the nearest article WP has to explaining the science behind how we know non-avian dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago, so I don't think it's fair to call it an easter egg. If there's any logical disconnect between man-dinosaur coexistance and the KT extinction, perhaps the theory is more at fault than the amendment. Still, you've highlighted another error which has still not been corrected: non-avian dinosaurs are not specified. Correcting that now. Scoundr3l (talk) 01:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I see no problem with "non-avian dinosaurs" for our readers (even though proponents believe birds and dinosaurs are unrelated "kinds" and would not use that terminology). —PaleoNeonate – 16:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Pseudoscience (again)

@BonjourElCapitan: Per WP:BRD you should discuss it here and attempt to reach consensus instead of edit warring. Young Earth Creationism does include pseudoscientific views such as Young Earth Geology/Flood Geology, etc. We also have a related policy: WP:PSCI. Many sources can also be found supporting this. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 21:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The reason that I believe it should be "Creationist" rather than "pseudoscientific" is because it is a factual and clear explanation of the subject of the article. Whether or not something is pseudoscientific or generally false is irrelevant, as anyone of any belief or position can claim something as pseudoscientific; what everyone can agree on is that the park promotes a Creationist worldview. A Wikipedia article should be as an "ideal" news article: it should state the facts as they are and leave the reader to decide what those facts mean, especially with something as controversial as religion versus atheism (and/or Darwinism).--BonjourElCapitan (talk) 03:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I believe it should be "Creationist" rather than "pseudoscientific" It already mentions Young Earth Creationism; the mention of pseudoscience is additional material. A Wikipedia article should be as an "ideal" news article this is ambiguous; encyclopedia articles are not news posts... —PaleoNeonate – 04:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Creationism is pseudoscience. You are basically arguing that we should use "dozen" rather than "twelve." TechBear | Talk | Contributions 07:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Call it Christian belief - not a POV term. Legacypac (talk) 23:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

AiG is not promoting the park as representative of Christian belief: they are promoting the park as representative of scientific fact. That makes the pseudoscience label fully appropriate. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 23:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

That is only your personal belief. You are labeling and POV pushing here. Please stop. Legacypac (talk) 00:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

No. The 5th reference specifically refers to this as part of AIG's program of pushing pseudoscience, and the other references describe how it is not science; as does the AIG page in wikipedia correctly label AIG. It is critical for the correct functioning of Wikipedia that it be able to correctly describe and label pseudoscientific subjects, particularly in the lead. And arbcom has generally agreed.GliderMaven (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

But a majority of sources are not calling it pseudoscience? Then labeling it as such is WP:UNDUE. If in doubt, we use the least aggressive label to describe the topic. Otherwise, it does appear to be POV and giving an improper weight to a single source. Policy is crystal clear on this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Please note this is making a claim in Wikipedia's voice, and if you are connecting dots rather than using the actual sources, that is WP:SYNTH and WP:Original research. I get why some of you THINK it is pseudoscience, but you are injecting your own opinions rather than relying on the bulk of sources, which is what policy demands we do here. We don't throw around labels unless there are numerous sources throwing them first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

This is as open and shut as you can get. In order for something to be pseudoscience, two things have to happen: 1) somebody has to claim something is science, 2) scientists have to make a big fuss about it definitely not being science. AIG's own website claim they are doing science: [1], and creation science is even listed in Wikipedia's own policies as clear pseudoscience. I also draw people's attention to the arbcom ruling about pseudoscience at the top of this page; namely that anyone trying to edit war to make something appear not to be pseudoscience is likely to end up the wrong end of a block. This is likely not going to end well for anyone removing the correct labelling of this topic.GliderMaven (talk) 00:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

You need to read the links I provided. That is WP:SYNTH and it is not allowed. And to be clear, it is clearly a contentious term, and per WP:BRD, the WP:BURDEN is on you here. Feel free to report me to Arb. Since they don't establish policy and you can't claim Arb protection simply by adding a label that has insufficient sourcing to support, and I've linked you to the applicable policies that cover this, I don't think you will get anywhere. Again, the burden (by policy) is on you to establish that multiple reliable sources are calling it pseudoscience. If you can't produce that, putting it back in is clearly edit warring and will treated as much. Read the actual policies. Arb does before they act. Oh, and what you linked is a notability guideline, not our policy on sources. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I added a source which refers to the Ark Encounter as pseudo science, it was removed. Theroadislong (talk) 07:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

That highly opinionated "source" [2] was correctly removed with an appropriate edit summary.Not even close to being a RS Legacypac (talk) 08:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

That source is a bit questionable to say the least. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Finding sources that say that the owner of the Ark Encounter push pseudoscience is not exactly hard. And I note that you're claiming that we need to find a 'majority of sources'. No, no we don't. If Wikipedia required a majority of sources for anything, it would be almost completely empty. You can't polish a turd, AIG are pseudoscience-pushing religious fundamentalists. And really, you know that; or if you don't, you should.GliderMaven (talk) 19:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

We don’t need reliable sources, there is a binding arbcom ruling that 'creation science' is pseudoscience.

But in any case here’s the most reliable source you can get…[3] The New Scientist. Theroadislong (talk) 08:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

That's an clear opinion piece by an evolutionist. It's not unbias reporting. However it nicely lays out that Ark encounter calls itself a "Christian evangelistic outreach intended to bring the Ark of Noah’s day to life,” which “equips visitors to understand the reality of the events that are recorded in the book of Genesis” so which debunks the idea this is not presented as religion. If you don't think we need RS you are on the wrong website. Legacypac (talk) 08:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

In the UK we don't have "evolutionists" we call then scientists. Theroadislong (talk) 09:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm going by the advicate's own mini bio. Legacypac (talk) 09:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Where it clearly states "Evolutionary biologist" NOT "evolutionist" and if you don't consider The New Scientist a reliable source then you are also on the wrong website. Mainstream science clearly considers it pseudoscience. Theroadislong (talk) 09:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What? The source describes him as an "evolutionary biologist". Maybe he uses it, but it's generally used as a denigrating term by Creationist. Yes, scientists tend to be biased towards science, quelle surprise! Wikipedia actually prefers scientific sources. Doug Weller talk 09:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• [4] it would be better if you learned meanings of words Legacypac (talk) 09:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

It is archaic and denigrating now though. Theroadislong (talk) 09:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• • @Legacypac:, that'a a ridiculous comment. I am very well aware of the meaning of the word, we are discussing its use. Cambridge gives the same meaning[5] but the 5 examples it gives for its use are all Creationist uses. You either didn't do your research or avoided Cambridge University's site. Doug Weller talk 14:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• I don't have a dog in this hunt except to say we shouldn't be adding labels that have nothing but negative connotations unless WP:UNDUE has been met. That isn't about my opinion, that is about my interpretation of policy. "Pseudoscience" is a negative term, no group identifies as this intentionally. Before it used to describe a theme park (can't believe we are here...), then there UNDUE has to be considered. This would be true of any label that is primarily seen as a negative term. One source isn't enough (again, UNDUE is about weight) although it doesn't require a half dozen. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Can we agree then, that the evolutionary biologist Josh Rosenau who is programs and policy director of the US National Center for Science Education is a reliable source? https://www.newscientist.com/article/2100109-school-field-trips-to-creationist-ark-sink-that-idea-right-now/ Theroadislong (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

A highly opinionated piece - the link is a reliable source of his opinion but nothing else. Note the term "creationist" right in the title of the page you are pushing white rejecting the term "evolutionist" for the author. Legacypac (talk) 17:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The Big Think piece uses the term ""religionists" and even contains this increadably stupid statement about why the Ark Encounter does not yet show on some digital maps "Makes sense: most technology relies on logic to properly operate. There’s no reason this zoo would ever appear." which maybe explains why one of my businesses is misplaced on Google maps. One thing the Big Think piece gets right is that Ark Encounter portrays itself as Christian and showing a Biblical Narritive. We simple need to say that and lay off the attack on religion that this has turned into. Legacypac (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Shame on you - Doug Weller - I simply googled and posted the first definition that came up. I did not avoid a specific dictionary. You have no tight to accuse me of bad faith. If a person who believes in creation is a creationist someone who believes in evolution is an evolutionist. It's basic English. I'm striving for neutrality in the phrasing not derogifory terms that are undue.

Ok, I'll accept that, although I think it's a bad idea to stop at the first definition. But I did say it was either avoiding the Cambridge dictionary or not doing your research, and since you stopped at the first one, that's not doing your research, not avoiding Cambridge. The "either" is key. If I'd only said you were avoiding something, that would be bad faith. You did accuse me of not knowing the meaning of the word - was that a good faith comment? Let's drop this OT stuff, ok? By the way, words are generally defined today by their most common usage, not technically the way you are doing it. Thus anti-semitism does not mean anti-Arab, even if it looks as though it does. "Evolutionist" is a term usually used by Creationists in a derogatory way. Doug Weller talk 18:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

You are a respected Admin but you are way out to lunch here. I've never heard or read anyone say the word "evolutionist" is a derogatory word and I'm pretty well versed on the topic having read books on both sides of the debate and attended lectures over the years. If it is a bad word than so is "creationist" and "religionist". You don't get to use Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX to malign the faith of countless people. Science changes constantly as we make new discoveries and scientists frequently disagree. Some editors are coming across here like there is some great ever constant "scientific truth" and any organization that promotes a different faith based belief system than they hold needs to be branded and labeled in the most non-neutral language possible in the article lede. I'm perfectly fine with including a critism section amd even some neutral statement that says there is criticism in the lede but for an Admin to attack another editor over the meaning of dictionary word is uncalled for. Legacypac (talk) 19:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Again, I wasn't attacking you and I'm sorry if you feel that I did. I apologise for any poor wording. I definitely am not using Wikipedia to malign the faith of countless people. I dislike the word religionist, but Creationists use the word to refer to themselves[6] so they don't seem to think it's derogatory. If you want to keep discussing me, please do it on my talk page. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The latest edit is even LESS neutral [7] and introduces a source that does not discuss this theme park at all. Legacypac (talk) 03:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I reverted it (and made other changes). It violates WP:COATRACK since this is an article of the Ark Encounter and not AiG. Also, we only need to use the word "creationist" (I changed it from "Christian" to, hopefully, clarify and avoid edit warring) -- the other terms were redundant at best. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

My impression, from hanging around some of these articles and the WP:FTN is that it's pretty standard practice to use the word "pseudoscience"/"pseudoscientific" when describing an organization that advocates for pseudoscience. The claim here is being used for the parent organization, and I'm not sure why it would be synth to include here in that context. I.e. If we transposed and said that the Ark Encounter itself advocates for pseudoscience when none of the sources say so, that would be synth, but it seems pretty common to give a brief description of a parent topic in the child topic's article, even if the description of the parent isn't explicitly mentioned in articles about the child. The coatrack argument is an understandable one, and I do think it's sometimes awkward to get that word in there in nearly every instance across the pedia, but I guess I would point back to that this seems to be standard practice. Probably worth bringing up at WP:FTN. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

FYI — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

This article has been edited to remove any mention of pseudoscience. The use of discretionary sanctions has been authorized by the Arbitration Committee for pages related to pseudoscience and fringe science, including this article.

There is a solid reliable source in The New Scientist from Evolutionary biologist Josh Rosenau here.. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2100109-school-field-trips-to-creationist-ark-sink-that-idea-right-now/ Theroadislong (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I have made this point already somewhere else in respect of the original reference that was used to support the pseudo-science argument. The New Scientist piece that you have cited above is the opinion of its author and nothing more. It cannot be used as a reliable source that the Arc Encounter is based on pseudo-science. I am not saying that it is not, just that we have no reliable evidence of it here. Some have even hinted at it being a 'fringe theory' but it certainly is not that given that it was the mainstream view for hundreds (if not thousands) of years, and still is within some faith systems. TheVicarsCat (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Joshua Rosenau is a science and education policy leader and science communicator at the National Center for Science Education University of Kansas, he testified before the Texas state board of education in 2011 and 2013, I can't think of a more reliable source? Theroadislong (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with this BTW. The New Scientist article is not ideal for this purpose, since "pseudoscience" is also a term people throw around in opinion columns (not saying he's doing that here -- just that we need better than an opinion column). That said, there's no shortage of sources calling creation science pseudoscience and no shortage of sources saying AiG promotes pseudoscience, so it doesn't seem problematic to label them as such (as we do in the parent article about them). Where I'm not 100% is whether it should be included as a description of the organization if the sources don't also talk about Ark Encounter. My sense is that it's common practice to do so following the relevant arbcom case and WP:FRINGE, but that's why I pinged FTN. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy to add in the Rosenau cite, and I think it should be sufficient, but there are PLENTY of other citations which identify this subject as pseudoscience. I have included two for starters, though I tend to believe that ledes should be citation-free. jps (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

My two peneth:, frankly I agree we should not call it pseudoscience, we should call it religious faith. But if RS say it is pseudoscience we have to say they say that.Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, they call it pseudoscience. You can check the citations. jps (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I did, that was my point. Is RS do not agree with me we go with what the RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Scientifically speaking, all creationism is pseudoscience.[8] 97-98% of scientists accept evolution, based on a humungous amount of hard evidence. And it's not simply that AiG are being unscientific; plenty of things are unscientific, but they go much further and claim to be scientific; that's where the pseudoscience comes in. There's also the arbcom ruling about pseudoscience, it's not incorrect in Wikipedia to accurately characterise pseudoscience as such.GliderMaven (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I have to say I fell the lead has (what you might call) a double positive. Surely we do not need to day that a pseudoscience is factually incorrect, it is that by definition. It just reads like we are being far too needy in saying "they are wrong, do you know how wrong...this wrong". I think we can have the compromise I made and not have readers make the mistake of thinking "well it is factually correct pseudoscience". You know we are allowed to compromise?Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The problem with your wording is that it doesn't capture the epistemological status of the claims of the museum (which is "incorrect"). There aren't really very diplomatic ways to say this. Already, we are attributing the label of "pseudoscience" to criticism, but the beliefs that the Ark Encounter promotes about scientific facts are beliefs that are demonstrably incorrect. We need to be honest about this so the readers don't think it's just a on-one-hand/on-the-other sort of situation. Go ahead and workshop an alternative if you'd like, but it's not okay to simply say that it is at variance with scientific evidence any more than it would be okay to say that the statement "human beings are a few millimeters in height" is just "at variance with scientific evidence".jps (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Err my edit did not just say that, it said it was pseudoscience that was at variance with scientific evidence. I really do not see how anyone can take from that we are not saying it is unscientific twaddle. I really do not see why calling it unscientific needs to be made any stronger (anbd I think we are massively insulting the bulk of our readership in thinking we need to ram this down their throats wit hall the subtlety of writing it on half a house brick and slamming it into their face shouting "DO YOU GET IT!". There is a reason that the word Pseudoscience was objected to.Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Your edit removed "factual incorrect" and replaced it "at variance with scientific evidence". That's unacceptably misleading. Their beliefs about timescales are simply incorrect. It's not a value judgment and it is not "at variance" with "evidence". It's just wrong. If you think we're ramming this down the reader's throat, come up with a way to write it that makes it clear while not doing so. Simply removing the statement that the beliefs are factually incorrect doesn't cut it. jps (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

What it is not at variance with scientific evidence?Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The point isn't epistemically strong enough. It's mixing different types of errors. It's like saying that 2+2=1254 is at odds with scientific evidence. While this is undeniably true, it doesn't capture the sense in which the statement is actually false. jps (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

How much stronger do you need then calling it a pseudoscience? As I said there is a reason they object to that label. As I have said I am not sure we need to say more then it is a creationist belief that is pseudoscience. But have it your way. I think it is achieving the exact opposite of what you claim to want.Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Crucially, we (in Wikipedia's voice) aren't calling it pseudoscience. The article states that it has been criticized as being pseudoscience. The factually incorrect statements are those that claim incorrect values for timescales. jps (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Then we should reword it to say it is pseudoscience, not says it is wrong but it has been called wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The current wording attributes the label to criticism and identifies the factual errors as just that. This is as precise as you can get with the characterization. jps (talk) 18:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Bill Nye

Is no expert on evolution or arks or even an actual scientist. He's a mechancial engineer with a B Sc and an actor. It's fine to say he visited the theme park but citing him as an authority is not appropriate. Legacypac (talk) 03:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not how it works. Bill Nye is a WP:MAINSTREAM authority on the subject of pseudoscience, such as this. jps (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I am not going to get involved in this discussion further but to note that WP:Mainstream is an essay and cannot be considered authoritarian on anything but as an opinion. I would agree that Nye is not an authority on science related topics. Our standards for science related sources are higher than using this person as an authority.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC))

Take it to WP:RSN. You'll lose. As usual. jps (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• So are you saying Mainstream is not an essay or that Nye is a credible academic in any science related field? I'm not edit warring content, you are, and have no interest in the article one way or the other.I do have an interest in correcting misinformation.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC))

Where do we quote him as an authority anyway?Slatersteven (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

We cite his opinion in the article to show where the museum is at odds with scientific facts. jps (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, depends on the claim. Commonplace facts don't need super-strength sources. Alexbrn (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I must be missing it somehow,. I can only find a quote relating to his debate with Ham and his visit to the Ark relating to that.Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Citation #5. jps (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Citation #5 is a link to an article by TOM EBLEN.17:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

No doubt. The authority quoted is Bill Nye. jps (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Is he? OK.Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• Meh. Nye is entertaining and educational if a bit cartoonish. If we really need a serious rebuttal I...have a hard time believing we can't find one from someone more serious. Even someone like ND Tyson you could at least say they hold a legitimate academic/educational position not involving Netflix. The first quote seems fine. The second whole paragraph is a little silly. The first use of citation 5 is a little cite bombed anyway. GMG^talk 17:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
  • We don't need a serious rebuttal. They don't warrant it. The creationists on this page are just upset because he declared victory in a (perhaps cartoonish) debate with Ken Ham. jps (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
    • PARITY doesn't mean you can use lower quality sources because you feel like it; it means you can use lower quality sources when no higher quality sources are available, generally because of the obscurity of the topic. GMG^talk 17:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
      • The obscurity of the topic is exactly the case here. Scientists in general cannot be bothered to talk about this museum. Bill Nye, however, makes it his business. He's a pretty good source, therefore. jps (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
        • This seems only somewhat less silly and off topic than having an entire paragraph about Nye's visit in particular. Not to mention the quotes are taken from a YouTube video, and not the print source. At least if we included Jack Osbourne's opinion on why T-Rex's can't pick locks, we'd be pulling it from a print source and not a Youtube video. GMG^talk 17:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Editing down the section in the article about Nye's visit is okay with me. I'm inclined to say that Ozzy's visit may be notable... why not? We go into too much detail in this article as far as I'm concerned. Why not have at it? jps (talk) 18:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)!jps and others are insisting on including a psudoscientist's opinion to support the assertion the themepark is pseudoscience in the lede of the page. It's comical frankly. Nye is no authority on Biblical narrative, Christian belief, evolution, creationism, geology or anything else around Ark Encounter. He's not even a scientist, he just plays one on TV. Legacypac (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Ark Encounter has not been scientifically evaluated because, now stay with me here, it's not a scientific enterprise. Bill Nye, an expert on entertainment and public outreach for scientific education, is perhaps the best qualified evaluator of the things that the Ark Encounter is trying or claims to be trying to do. jps (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

changes to the lede section

The recent changes to the lede section by User:ජපස were a VAST improvement, sadly the edit warring has begun and all changes have been reverted, so we now have a very poor and inaccurate article, more worthy of Conservapedia. Theroadislong (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I reverted and warned the editor who reintroduced factual errors into the article. That is a blockable offense at Wikipedia. jps (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Note I warned jps for their abuse of warning templates. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Full protection

Bit less edit warring, bit more discussion, bit less BLP vio, mmmkay? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Considering I already requested full at RFPP, yes I'd say that would be fine. :P GMG^talk 18:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

NPOV violations in the article

These two comments above[9][10] (along with this incredibly dumb and inaccurate comment) are ridiculous. There are no factual errors in the version that I and several other editors are advocating for (in fact, our preferred version is more simple/streamlined, while your version goes out of its way to attack -- and I'm not using the word "attack" lightly, as I will explain -- the Ark Encounter and YEC).

Actually, the other side's proposed version is the version littered with POV-pushing. For example, several links have unnecessary piping -- the links to Genesis flood narrative is piped to "flood myth", and Bible is piped to "Hebrew Bible". Also, why do we need the wording "is what the park claims" when mentioning that it is a full-scale representation of the biblical Ark? Are people claiming that AiG got the model wrong or did not follow the biblical proportions? Also the wording "factually incorrect" is unnecessary -- go to the linked articles on creationism to read about that. This version reads like it was written by an atheist POV-pusher who needs to go out of his way and take every chance he can get to attack YEC rather than write a NPOV encyclopedia.

And whatever happened to "show don't tell"? If you actually want to convince people that YEC is false, show them, don't make inflammatory comments on mainspace that turn many readers off, preach to the anti-YEC choir, and give fuel to the perception that Wikipedia has a secular left-wing bias.

The comments above comparing my (and others') preferred version to Conservapedia only shows how blatantly the other side is POV-pushing. Apparently, neutral prose that does not go anywhere close to endorsing YEC or creation "false balance" is now somehow radical right-wing YEC garbage, and wording fit only for anti-YEC and atheist blogs is preferred. Apparently, nobody here even knows what YEC bias actually looks like, since is our version were YEC POV-pushing, it would look a lot different from what we are actually proposing. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Let's take your questions in turn. This ought to be fun.

There are no factual errors in the version that I and several other editors are advocating for (in fact, our preferred version is more simple/streamlined, while your version goes out of its way to attack -- and I'm not using the word "attack" lightly, as I will explain -- the Ark Encounter and YEC). This is simply false. The factual error in question is the claim that the ark is a "full scale representation". In fact, this is only a belief of the museum. There is no established fact of the matter of what the particular measurement units referenced are.

That wording existed long before this dispute arose, so you can't say that I and other editors are trying to insert inaccuracies (and if that's all you can say is inaccurate about our preferred version, you really don't have anything substantive to say (and also see my comment on this a few lines down -- RSs say essentially the same thing). --1990'sguy (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

You reinserted an inaccuracy. That's what you did. You can stamp your foot and stick out your lower lip and say that others love you more than I, but that's irrelevant here. jps (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

As I explained, it's accurate and supported my reliable sources. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

You are now maintaining that AiG's position is accurate. And yet you claim not to be a partisan for them. Gotcha. jps (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm saying the wording used by major RSs is accurate. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Don't play the fool. The position is clearly that of AiG. That a newspaper reported uncritically published it is not surprising. jps (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

several links have unnecessary piping -- the links to Genesis flood narrative is piped to "flood myth" This is the technical term. It's good to use technical term to avoid confusion.

"Genesis flood narrative" is the technical term, hence the article's title. "Flood myth" is vague and would cause confusion (which flood myth? The one in the Bible, or in Babylonian mythology, or Mayan mythology, etc.?). --1990'sguy (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

No, "Genesis flood narrative" is not the technical term. Since the Ark Encounter references other flood myths in their exhibits, it is reasonable to explain that the one that they use is the one from the Hebrew Bible. jps (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

If it's not the technical term, then why is the article on the specific narrative in question entitled "Genesis flood narrative"? The fact that the exhibit mentions other flood myths (which it does to show that those narratives are descended from the Genesis flood narrative) is irrelevant to the fact that the Ark Encounter promotes the historicity of the Genesis flood narrative. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Because the academic scholarship uses the term flood myth. Note there is no article on flood narrative. Sorry if that offends your sensibilities. jps (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Typical WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT response. We're talking about the Genesis flood narrative, which does have an article by that (technical) title. That's the specific flood narrative that the Ark Encounter promotes, and that's the (technical) wording we should use. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Why do you think there is no article on the term flood narrative? What is the technical term for the type of story described in the book of Genesis about the global flood? jps (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Bible is piped to "Hebrew Bible". This is the reference. We could have said Genesis as well. But to say "bible" is to be inexact, but the article on "Bible" in Wikipedia clearly explains all that.

The article Bible is clear and specific enough. Besides, AiG is an evangelical Christian group, not a Hebrew/Jewish group. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Bible is quite clear. Labeling it Hebrew is not required. Legacypac (talk) 20:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The article is specific enough. The wording is not. jps (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

If the article is specific enough, we don't need to pipe the article. Besides, "Hebrew Bible" makes it sound like a Bible version used by ancient Hebrews. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The article previously read with the absurd implication that the entire bible supports AiG's interpretation of Noah's flood. That needs to change. Wording below does that. jps (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

No it doesn't, and the RSs support the wording (unless you think WaPo is fake news). --1990'sguy (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

If you think that anyone but creationists think that the Ark was a real historical fact, you've got another thing coming. jps (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, why do we need the wording "is what the park claims" when mentioning that it is a full-scale representation of the biblical Ark? Are people claiming that AiG got the model wrong or did not follow the biblical proportions? There is no reliable source that says that the museum got this scale correct. This is, in fact, your factual error.

The only (very few) sources I've seen claiming they got it wrong are non-neutral sources that fail WP:RS. And once again, that wording existed long before this dispute arose. Either way, the article's body deals with the varying measurements and how AiG chose the A.E.'s dimensions, and the alternate measurements all result in a similar-sized ark, and the reliable sources describe it as "full-sized", "life-sized", etc.[11][12][13][14] --1990'sguy (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Nah. This is just aping the park's position. You have not produced a reliable source that says that they got it right. So we cannot imply that in Wikipedia's words. jps (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

There is no sources saying they got the dimensions wrong, recognizing that the exact conversion of the Noah account is not known with certainty. Legacypac (talk) 20:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

So we don't say in Wikipedia's voice that they got it right. Simple. jps (talk) 20:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The sources (published by major legacy news organizations with good fact-checking arms -- is WaPo or BBC not a reliable source?) call it "life-sized", and so can we. Remember, the article body discusses the issue of the Ark's dimensions in detail regardless. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh puhleeze. If the Washington Posts says the sky is purple Wikipedia does not follow suit. jps (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Problem is, WaPo is never going to report that the sky is purple in the first place. There's no reason to believe that WaPo, especially with its fact-checking abilities, promotes fake news. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, they fucked up with that turn of phrase. Why can't they fuck up otherwise? Is it impossible for them to fuck up? Do you think that's what WP:RS means? jps (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Also the wording "factually incorrect" is unnecessary -- go to the linked articles on creationism to read about that. No. It's important to let people know that these beliefs are simply wrong.

No, it's important that don't violate NPOV in the process. See WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The only person trying to right great wrongs is you here. jps (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Your efforts to right great wrongs are the problem jps. I don't see at Disneyland changing the page to say the discription "Magic Kingdom" is "factually incorrect" even though there is nothing magic about the place and its not a kingdom either. Legacypac (talk) 20:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Insipid comparison. Disney is not trying to pursue a creationist agenda. jps (talk) 20:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

If I were, I would be proposing a significantly different version/wording. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

You have staked out a position to try to avoid offending creationist sensibilities. jps (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

BS. If I were, I would be proposing something completely different. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Nah, you're not smart enough to do that. jps (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

This version reads like it was written by an atheist POV-pusher who needs to go out of his way and take every chance he can get to attack YEC rather than write a NPOV encyclopedia. Yawn. That reality is contrary to the literalist, creationist viewpoint is neither a theist nor an atheist position. It's just the fact of the matter. If you don't like it, go to Conservapedia.

Knowing what reality is does not give you the right to violate NPOV in order to "educate" people (and if you want to actually convince people, your failing at it). The version that I and other editors support is unbiased and succinctly explains the facts without violating WP:COATRACK, WP:UNDUE, or NPOV. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

In accordance with reality is how you write an encyclopedia. See WP:ENC. This is non-negotiable. jps (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an atheist/anti-YEC soapbox -- that's why I oppose your edits. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Your creationist devotion to righting great wrongs is noted. jps (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Ha! If I actually were trying to right great wrongs, I would be proposing a version far different than what I already am. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Again, you don't have the smarts for it. jps (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

And whatever happened to "show don't tell"? If you actually want to convince people that YEC is false, show them, don't make inflammatory comments on mainspace that turn many readers off, preach to the anti-YEC choir, and give fuel to the perception that Wikipedia has a secular left-wing bias. The name of the game is being accurate. This is not the place to show the problems with YEC. It's not the place to hide that there are problems either. We tell because that's what asserting facts means.

No, Wikipedia is not the place for commentary posing as unbiased facts -- and just because a position is factually correct doesn't give people the right to explain that however and wherever they want. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

It is a fact that the Ark Encounter is wrong about the age of the Earth. jps (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

It's also a fact that we should adhere to WP:NPOV when stating facts. There are many false views I have no sympathy for, but I'm not going to go out of my way to have associated articles blatantly label those beliefs as "false" (there are better ways/places to do this). --1990'sguy (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

There is no "going out of the way". It's a categorical description and one is needed. jps (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The comments above comparing my (and others') preferred version to Conservapedia only shows how blatantly the other side is POV-pushing. Nah. It just shows that you live in a bubble and aren't aware that this kind of pandering is POV-pushing and accommodationist pushing for creationism. Expressly not allowed on Wikipedia. Sorry.

Considering you don't even know who I am, your claim that I "live in a bubble" is a personal attack (and inaccurate -- I've interacted with many people like you off Wikipedia, to the point where I was often "the odd man out"). And once again, you're falling for the lie that neutral, simple, and succinct text that doesn't go out of its way to attack YEC is "POV-pushing" and "accommodationist" while blatent POV-pushing on your part is unbiased. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Not at all convincing as a rejoinder. If you can identify an actual factual inaccuracy, do so. jps (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I asked you to identify factual inaccuracies, and you have yet to give a good example. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

That you lack the competence to see them is the problem here. jps (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

There are ways to improve the current text, but obfuscating that the museum is a museum of pseudoscience is not the way to do it. Our goal is not to convince any person of anything. It's just to describe as accurately, factually, and plainly as possible what the actual thing is.

The Ark Encounter is not a museum -- it's a theme park, by the builders' own definition. And if you were serious about not trying to convince people of anything, you wouldn't add blatant POV material to the article. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

It's a theme park with an agenda to "educate". Whether you want to call it a museum or not is up to you. jps (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for playing.

jps (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, this source in the "well referenced" version is an opinion column and does not meet WP:RS. It should be removed. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

It's an opinion which shows that criticism has been leveled and that criticism is notable enough to include here. jps (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

If we're going to include this article, we should note that it's an opinion article rather than pretend that it meets WP:RS. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

We did. jps (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, I can't view this article for free, but the abstract ("A Noah's Ark “theme park” stuffed full of creationist pseudoscience is no place for educational visits of any sort, says Josh Rosenau") suggests that it also does not meet WP:RS. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Rosenau is a reliable source for evaluating pseudsocience. jps (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

No, judging by the abstract, his article is an op-ed, and not only that, but the abstract shows that his main point is that the Ark Encounter shouldn't host school children (similar to that article we mentioned above that argued that those same activities were unconstitutional). If he's really a reliable source and not a commentator, he's not doing a good job at showing that. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. He's a reliable source. jps (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) At the very least, the unnecessary and POV piping (Genesis flood narrative --> "flood myth", Bible --> "Hebrew Bible"), and some of the language ("is what the park claims") must be removed. That along is blatant POV-pushing, and I'm not even talking about the "pseudoscience" stuff here, though the "factually incorrect" wording also is unnecessary. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The academic term flood myth is as neutral as it gets. I understand that people without education make the category error that a "myth" necessarily means "false", but it's the appropriate categorical designate for the story that the museum holds as true.

The park and its comrades in arms are, as far as I can tell, the only people arguing that they got the measurements right. We can't go by their say-so. I'm not sure we really need to describe it as "full scale" anything, but if we're going to use the park's terminology, we need to say that's what we're using.

I'm glad you gave up the argument about pseudoscience. We can move on then, I guess.

Factually inaccurate is necessary as a description of what the beliefs are. These are factually incorrect beliefs. Not factually correct ones. Get it?

jps (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The Flood myth article gives a general description of every flood myth in existence. This article does not pertain to just any flood myth, but specifically the Genesis flood narrative. "Genesis flood narrative" is the actual technical term for the specific narrative.

The RSs (as I pointed out above) are all calling this theme park "life-sized", "full-sized", etc. Not only that, but this article already talks about the different dimsensions in the body, and all the different dimsensions are all roughly similarly-sized. We don't need the POV "claimed" wording.

I did not "give up" the pseudoscience argument -- what I did was emphasize the other NPOV violations that have nothing to do with the core part of the dispute but were added anyway (showing that your version looks like a POV-pushing attempt).

Once again, you're making the article go out of its way to label YEC as "factually incorrect". There are many clearly false beliefs -- Greek/Roman polytheism, flat Earth views, reptilian conspiracy theories, the belief that dirty rags turn into rats, etc. -- we shouldn't use every chance we can get to constantly label them as "factually incorrect". There's a place for that (though it should be worded differently), but it's ridiculous to constantly do that using that same wording. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

*The Flood myth article gives a general description of every flood myth in existence. This article does not pertain to just any flood myth, but specifically the Genesis flood narrative. "Genesis flood narrative" is the actual technical term for the specific narrative. I don't disagree with this. Our article links to the article about the flood myth in Genesis. No problem. jps (talk) 20:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

But you piped the link to read "flood myth" despite the technical term of "Genesis flood narrative", and you linked to the separate article "Flood myth" several times above in this discussion. We should use the technical term of the flood narrative we are linking to, the Genesis flood narrative. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The type of story is a flood myth. Do you disagree. jps (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• The RSs (as I pointed out above) are all calling this theme park "life-sized", "full-sized", etc. Not only that, but this article already talks about the different dimsensions in the body, and all the different dimsensions are all roughly similarly-sized. We don't need the POV "claimed" wording. Since the ark almost certainly did not exist, to claim it is "life-sized" at all is an anachronism at best. If you don't like the "claimed" wording, try the wording listed below. We just need to be clear that it isn't "true to life" since that is a POV of creationists. jps (talk) 20:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Apparently, then, WaPo and BBC are infested with Christian creationists, as evidenced by their articles which use the exact same wording despite their large fact-checking arms. The wording does not give into YEC. Just because wording does not use every opportunity to bash YEC does not mean that it gives into YEC -- just ask the reporters at WaPo. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Strawman. That's not what I said and if you can't understand that it's just another piece of evidence that you shouldn't be editing here. jps (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• I did not "give up" the pseudoscience argument -- what I did was emphasize the other NPOV violations that have nothing to do with the core part of the dispute but were added anyway (showing that your version looks like a POV-pushing attempt). If you can't be bothered to argue a point, then don't argue it, I guess. jps (talk) 20:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• Once again, you're making the article go out of its way to label YEC as "factually incorrect". There are many clearly false beliefs -- Greek/Roman polytheism, flat Earth views, reptilian conspiracy theories, the belief that dirty rags turn into rats, etc. -- we shouldn't use every chance we can get to constantly label them as "factually incorrect". We do when they are couched in the place of a point where someone is claiming they are true. That's actually what Wikipedia does. See WP:ASSERT.
• There's a place for that (though it should be worded differently), but it's ridiculous to constantly do that using that same wording. Offer different wording if you like. I'm not sure what other wording suffices, but I'm happy to see alternatives.

jps (talk) 20:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Sources with statements like "religionists remain stuck in their echo chamber" are clearly not neutral and I am in agreement with User:1990'sguy that they should be removed. Wikipedia should not be used as a platform to push anti-religion or pro-religion sentiment and ideology, but should provide a balanced discussion of the topic, includiing information that Ark Encounter has led to the creation of a number of jobs in the area, boosted the economy, etc. desmay (talk) 19:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

There is no requirement for sources to be neutral? The jobs created is already mentioned. Theroadislong (talk) 19:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

No, you cannot dismiss a source on the basis of it saying something you don't like, no matter how odious you may find the statement to be. You can dismiss a source if you show that the source is inaccurate, not verifiable, incorrect, or fringe, but you aren't making any of those arguments. We are required to use sources as they come. We cannot simply say, "I don't like this source" as an argument to dismiss it. Whether Ark Encounter has created jobs or not is irrelevant to the topic at hand, of course. jps (talk) 19:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

How can someone argue the theme park got the dimensions of a boat wrong when they reject there ever was an original boat? Legacypac (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

How can there be "true to life dimensions" of something that didn't exist? jps (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

New wording

Does this wording bring us any closer to a compromise (omitting the links/pipes, since I think that can be worked out separately):

The centerpiece of the park is a large representation of Noah's Ark based on descriptions and measurements in the Bible's Genesis flood narrative. It is 510 feet (155 m) long, 85 feet (26 m) wide, and 51 feet (16 m) high.
Ark Encounter is operated by Answers in Genesis (AiG), a young Earth creationist organization which also operates the Creation Museum 45 miles (70 km) away in Petersburg, Kentucky. The attraction has received criticism for the scientific inaccuracy of its exhibits and for promoting AiG's pseudoscientific creationist beliefs about the age of the universe, age of the Earth, and co-existence of man and dinosaurs.

— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I would happily support this version. Theroadislong (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I would be happy with the following:

The centerpiece of the park is a large representation of Noah's Ark based on descriptions and measurements in the Biblical flood narrative. It is 510 feet (155 m) long, 85 feet (26 m) wide, and 51 feet (16 m) high.
Ark Encounter is operated by Answers in Genesis (AiG), a young Earth creationist organization which also operates the Creation Museum 45 miles (70 km) away in Petersburg, Kentucky. The attraction has received criticism for the scientific factual inaccuracy of its exhibits and for promoting that promote AiG's pseudoscientific creationist beliefs positions on the age of the universe, age of the Earth, and co-existence of man and dinosaurs.

jps (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind I added strikes/italics to your version to highlight the difference. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I'm ok with omitting "that are factually incorrect" since in the very same sentence we have "inaccuracy of its exhibits" and "promoting pseudoscience". Doesn't read well IMO. I had "AiG's" since most of the sources I'm seeing connect AiG and Ken Ham more with pseudoscience than this particular attraction, but make that connection in sources about this attraction. I don't have strong feelings about that particular difference, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I tweaked a bit. jps (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I re-added the strikes/italics for ease of comparison. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I prefer your top version, I think that works and sums it up nicely.Slatersteven (talk) 20:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I withdraw any support until I know what we are agreeing to. It would have been more usefull to have had any alterations made in separate posts, rather then altering an existing one.Slatersteven (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

That would've kept it neater, but I can't blame jps for not wanting to continue to expand the length of this page towards infinity. :) The original one that I posted has not changed (and I would object to it being changed in context). Jps proposed a version that I replied to above, and then revised it to where it is now. It would probably be a good idea for future versions to be spelled out, but I think it's ok to consider this workshopping rather than a formal straw poll at this point. That said, if there's broad agreement on any particular version, we can just implement it. For the record, I would support my original version above, weakly oppose jps's first draft for reasons I stated above, and also support jps's second version above. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, lets make this a bit easier.Slatersteven (talk) 22:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

This is a workshop. Not a voting booth. I'm not interested in going down the road of having a fuckton of proposals. jps (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

We do not we have two, and I said was can we actually decide what two it is and stop making edits to them after people have made their choice. If you are not interested in actually trying to create one proposal and then stick with it that is not my problem. What should not be done is waiting until people have chosen and then altering it (do you really disagree with this?).Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• I strongly oppose any proposed wording that does not revert the piping and "claims" wording in the first paragraph for the reasons I explained above. These proposals only deal with the second paragraph. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• Then you're opposing nothing in this section. The version I proposed specifically starts with the first contested sentence which, in the current version of the article, includes the "claims" line you're taking issue with. I was factoring that issue into my version above, which does not include "claims". There is also no piping. I explicitly said I omitted all links so we can agree on the text itself before getting into the links. It would be a very poor attempt at a compromise if I had just ignored those elements. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• @1990'sguy: Curious about your thoughts about the two proposed wordings above. You said you strongly oppose based on two reasons, but neither of those reasons actually apply to the above. If you would oppose both, can you specify what you would require changing in order to support? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I will give my opinion/proposal once I get the time to do so. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I didn't see that these proposals contained two paragraphs, and I will confess that I was skimming. The info I was most concerned about was in the first paragraph. Regardless, here is what I propose for the intro:

The centerpiece of the park is a large representation of Noah's Ark based on descriptions and measurements in the Genesis flood narrative of the Bible. It is 510 feet (155 m) long, 85 feet (26 m) wide, and 51 feet (16 m) high.
Ark Encounter is operated by Answers in Genesis (AiG), a young Earth creationist organization which also operates the Creation Museum 45 miles (70 km) away in Petersburg, Kentucky. The attraction has received criticism from the scientific community and other groups for inaccuracies and promoting creationist beliefs about the age of the universe, age of the Earth, and co-existence of man and dinosaurs.

This version completely undoes the ridiculous piping (the two versions above do not, as they use the term "biblical flood narrative", which is much better but not the title of the article "Genesis flood narrative", and the other versions don't link to the "Bible" article), and it specifies who criticizes the Ark, thus avoiding a potential WP:WEASEL violation. It also does away with terms like "pseudoscience" (there are better ways and places to convey this fact) that give the article the appearance of bias (biased or not, appearance is important, as in law -- and the many IPs and other editors who frequently come in to remove terms like that illustrate this). And once again, if I were writing on a website like CreationWiki, I would use much different wording than this proposal (but of course, I'm "not smart enough to do that" :) ). --1990'sguy (talk) 21:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

strongly oppose JPS's text as too POVy and just more of the same slightly reworded . support Rhododendrites text.Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Neither of these is ok with me. I'll try to craft or dig up some text to discuss. Not justthe words but the piping matters. It would be good for everyone to step back fkr a couple days and look at this with fresh eyes and clear heads. Read the post just below a coipke times and think about it. Legacypac (talk) 15:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Which is why I've said multiple times in this very section that links are intentionally omitted. If we can agree on the text that doesn't mean it should be immediately instated. That means what comes next is how best to link that text. I've read the below more than a couple times -- many versions of it over many years, every time someone argues to include pseudoscience in an article without explicitly labeling it as such. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

oppose 1990guys suggestion, it is not just a case of inaccuracy, but totally going against the scientific consensus (whilst claiming it is science).Slatersteven (talk) 08:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Regarding 1990'sguy's proposal, I didn't intend to include piping in the version I proposed. As I said I tried to remove links from the equation for these purposes, and understand now what you meant -- that was an oversight on my part; I'm fine with wording it according to the article title, i.e. "Genesis flood narrative". I've gone ahead and updated my version at the top to say "Bible's Genesis flood narrative". @Slatersteven: Since you expressed support for that version, I want to ping you regarding this change.

The second paragraph is still problematic, though. You've changed "criticism for the scientific inaccuracy of its exhibits" to "criticism from the scientific community for inaccuracies. That's quite different, along the lines of Vicar's even more problematic proposal below with its "doubt". I'm not as tied to the word "pseudoscientific" as some others are, but I do think it's appropriate here and think this would require substantial rewording to be rid of it. The issue isn't just that it promotes creationist beliefs, but that it promotes pseudoscientific creationist beliefs. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

You're effectively informing us that there are non-pseudoscientific creationist beliefs -- hence the silliness in having to attach the word "pseudoscientific" to "creationist" or "YEC" every time it's mentioned.

But looking at the proposals, I will point out that mine takes the middle ground -- and I tried to make it that way. If we're going to reach a real consensus, I recommend the middle ground. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The argument made by the creationism article is that not all types of creationism are necessarily pseudoscientific. If it's a purely religious belief and supporters pointedly claim that it is unscientific, then it's difficult to sustain a position that it is pseudoscience. But where the claim is being made, as here by AiG, that creation science is scientific, that is certainly considered pseudoscience.GliderMaven (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Amended my vote, I still support Rhododendrites original text. The theme park claims it is science, and directly challenges scientific theories (up to and including in public debates), thus is is not just creationist.Slatersteven (talk) 08:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: You struck the support above -- does that mean you view the change from "Biblical flood narrative" to "Bible's Genesis flood narrative" as a negative? I do not understand why that one was a big deal (for either side). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but as I said I was not going to keep on reevaulting new suggestions. I said I would withhold voting until we have stable suggestions. As such I am not willing to cast a support vote until I know what the hell I am voting on. So I have chosen to strike both supports and say which version I would have supported.Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

No we are informing you that not all creationists beliefs claim to be based on science, this one does.Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Oppose: Having "scientific inaccuracy" and "pseudoscience" runs afoul of WP:UNDUE. In regards to jps' proposal, "creationist beliefs" is more precise than "pseudoscience." Support 1990sGuy's proposal because it is compliant with WP:DUE. – Lionel^(talk) 02:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

For the purposes of an RfC, would it be fair to say that if the choices were the versions I proposed at the top of this section and the version 1990'sguy proposed above, that all participants in this discussion would be reasonably happy with one or the other? This seems easier than asking a question like "should it be called pseudoscience in the lead?" and leaving the rest to still be figured out... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I could live with your choice, though I don't think it's the best (though compared to jps's edits, which were blatent POV-pushing, anything is OK). --1990'sguy (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)