Talk:Answers in Genesis/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Section on homosexuality with unsourced accusations

I want to edited the section on homosexuality. It contains two unsourced accusations against AiG. First and worst, nowhere has AiG called homosexuality a criminal offense. Second, I am not aware of any articles where AiG condemns those people who want to suppress preaching against homosexuality. If you want to state they condemn these people, then provide a specific source. Simply pointing to a quote where they refer to this suppression as an example of how homosexuals are a politically protected group can not be called condemning. Let's discuss. 20:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to say i was surprised by the wording used by Sarfati when I first read his op-ed. While he does not use the word condemn, labeling a group homonazis is a condemnation. I assume you think it is a stretch to call that a condemnation but what is another interpretation? It seems to be too strong to be a mild rebuke. David D. (Talk) 20:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way how is this unsourced it is a direct quote from Sarfati and the link is next to his name and hosted at the AIG web site. David D. (Talk) 21:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't equate name calling to condemnation. Even if I did, I still believe the article statement "AiG condemns those who seek to repress preaching against homosexual behavior" is unsourced. The quote provided is talking about those people who want to see Christians and preachers who quote from the Bible against homosexuality thrown in jail. Some people or groups are seeking to repress this speech through means other than jail time such as a the loss of an organization's tax exempt status. The current article infers that AiG believes these people are homonazis and sodomofasicsts as well. I believe Sarfati was wrong to get into the name calling, but I also think it is wrong to expand the target of his apparent anger to other groups.

Furthermore, this was not an op-ed piece as you claim. It was on their feedback page in response to someone who sent them a condemnation of AiG's position on homosexuality.

I think a more accurate statement for this article would be "In a feedback response to someone condemning AiG's position on homosexuality, Jonathan Sarfati referred to those who want Christians and preachers jailed for quoting scriptures against homosexuality as 'homonazis' and 'sodomofasists'". The article can then link to the feedback page on the AiG website.Dennis Fuller 14:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

These are excellent points. You're also right it was not a op-ed, that was a poor choice of words on my part. David D. (Talk) 16:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I have reworked the section on AiG's position of homosexuality. Hopefully I have represented everyone's view fairly. It was my original intentions to include the "homonazi" quote but could not come up with a way of wording this information without it seeming POVish. Maybe this point would fit better in the section of criticms to AiG.

Another unsourced claim in Race section?

Here's another criticism of AiG that I believe is unsourced:

"AiG argues that ... Evolution has (and still does) promote racism"

Does AiG claim that evolution plays a part in current day racism? I don't think I have ever seen this claim and a general link to a FAQ page is a poor reference. If someone isn't aware of a specific page that claims this, then I think this statement should be edited to remove the phrase "(and still does)". 21:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why you say those comments are unsourced? I looked at two of the articles at the link provided and there was a lot of evidence in these AIG articles that "AiG claim that evolution plays a part in current day racism?'"". I have bolded the text that appear to refer to the present.

Evolutionary racism by Carl Wieland: text below quoted from Carl Wieland.

"The false belief system of evolution has been used since its inception to dull people to the moral absolutes of Scripture, whether justifying Nazism, Stalinism, the abortion holocaust, indifference to starvation in Africa, or the maltreatment of indigenous people."

The fallacy of racism by Paula Weston: text below quoted from Paula Weston.

"The increasing spread of evolutionist doctrine has much to answer for in relation to the way people often treat each other. Sadly, people rarely recognize that the prejudices which have slowly become ingrained in their psyche have often been a result—directly or indirectly—of evolutionary thinking."

"As a result of evolutionary thinking, many in Western society are unable to experience heartfelt sympathy for starving children in poverty-stricken Third World countries. For reasons they could never justify, they believe ‘life’ somehow means less to these strangers with different skin colour and features. Incredibly, I have heard this type of comment from ‘educated’ people! This misinformed attitude is understandable if people accept the idea of ‘survival of the fittest’, that the rules of the animal kingdom must apply to humans ‘because we’ve all evolved from animals’!"

"Evolutionists teach that these groups ‘evolved’ independently from each other, separated for many tens of thousands of years. Evolutionists feel this length of time is necessary to explain the development of physical differences between the ‘races’. This misleading concept gives rise to the idea that some ‘races’ have developed and become more ‘sophisticated’ faster than others, leading to the ultimate conclusion (often subconsciously) that certain ‘races’ are superior to other"

Am I misinterpreting these commentaries? David D. (Talk) 21:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

No, you are not misinterpreting those. The source link for that statement in the article points to a topic index. I perused a few of the articles and could not find any source. Maybe it would make more sense for the link to point to a single page, or have multiple links to individual pages, instead of just dropping the reader off in the middle of an index of topics. DennisF 14:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the links should be more specific. I have not read the other articles, just the two above. From the title they seemed the most likely to have the source material. The Paula Weston article is probably the best one of the two since it has more examples. On the other hand Carl Wieland is a more prominent player the creationist movement. I suppose both sources could be used. David D. (Talk) 16:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Section on 9/11, tsunami, and Katrina

I don't think this topic is so important to the understanding of AiG that it deserves a section that appears in table of contents. The existing section does contains some important information about AiG's views, but I think these could be summarized into a paragraph and placed in a section that alrady exists. Also, I think what was written about 9/11 is a little misleading. By selectively quoting the phrase "encouraging reminder" it makes it appear that AiG has a wholly positive view of what happened on 9/11. If you read the sourced article, it starts off by calling what happened on 9/11 a "sobering reminder" and ends by calling it a "solemn reminder". DennisF 17:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Why only quote first part of Statement of Faith?

It seems odd to me that we only quote the first part of the AiG's Statement of Faith in the article. Unless there is something in there that makes them different from other evangelical organizations then we should just have a reference to it with an external link so the reader can go to AiG's website to read it if they choose. DennisF 17:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Quoting large sections of their charter doesn't seem very encyclopediac. It basically just says that they are Christians and biblical literalists, both of which are already mentioned in the article numerous times. Cut the section, I say. Ashmoo 22:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Article structure

Since the intro is supposed to provide a summary, material in the intro should be repeated in the text. Guettarda 23:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Edits to cosmology section

I have some issues with the recent additions to the section on cosmology.

I have a problem with the statement "They do not support any one creationist cosmology in particular". When we talk about different variations of creationist cosmologies, aren't we primarily dealing with how they answer the distant star light dilemma and whether or not they are geocentrists? When I read this article from the AiG website, I can clearly see them presenting three different explanations to the star light problem with preference being made for Dr. Humphrey's explanation. I have no problem with the statement that suggests AiG spends more effort criticizing long-age cosmologies than they do putting forth their own explanations.

I think this section on cosmology could be expanded. The star light dilemma presents a serious challenge to young earth creationists views and I think this topic deserves to be addressed in this section as well how AiG attempts to answer the problem.

Also, I have a problem with the statement that compares AiG's opinion that our galaxy is near the center of the universe to geocentricism. I can make a list of ways the two are different and the only similarity I can think of is that geocentricism says the earth is the exact center of the universe and AiG's view says our galaxy is near the center of the universe. DennisF 14:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you consider problematic about "They do not support any one creationist cosmology in particular". Are you saying that isn't a factual account of AiG's position? --ScienceApologist 16:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

From my perspective, no it is not a factual statement. AiG has shown preference to Humphrey's explanation to the star light dilemma here. They have shown support for the suggestion that our galaxy is near the center of the universe here. Why do you consider them to be vague on which creationist cosmologies they support? Can you tell me which areas of creationist cosmology you claim they haven't expressed their preferences between competing views? DennisF 17:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess it's good that they support Humphreys, but they also seem to be open to the idea that there needs to be more discussion on the matter. From what I can understand, they are simply saying that they want Humphreys to be taken seriously but shy away from making a declaration that this is how the way things definitely happened. Anyway, I see it as a minor distinction. Try editting it if you have a better way to put it. --ScienceApologist 20:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It's worth noting here (and probably in the article itself) that AiG advises "holding loosely" to any scientific evidence that appears to support creationism.[1] The only thing that AiG will ever say "definitely happened this way" are events they believe are recorded in the Bible. Since Humphrey's model isn't required by a literal interpretation of Genesis, they claim they wouldn't cling to it even if mainstream science accepted it.

I will try to make some edits to the cosmology section tomorrow and include their preference for Humphrey's model. BTW, if you look on their "arguments not to use" page, you will see they list "c decay" was one of them as well as a statement of their preference to Humphrey's model. DennisF 20:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I have a problem with the statement that compares AiG's opinion that our galaxy is near the center of the universe to geocentricism. -- Why? The distinctions that you outline are rather fine indeed and many modern geocentrists use the very same arguments AiG uses to support their claims. We are clear that AiG does not endorse modern geocentrism, but the parallels are undeniable. I understand that AiG is careful to distinguish between "exact" and "near" and "Milky Way" and "Earth", but those distinctions are meaningless to the Copernican principle dominated mainstream astronomical community. --ScienceApologist 16:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Points well made. I agree with your edit that highlights their similarity on the basis they both reject the Copernican Principle.

Thanks for fixing my accidental overwriting of the entire AiG article! I don't know what happened. I was only editing the section of "Social and moral issues" and had some internet connection problems after hitting "Save" and I was unable to see and fix what I had done.DennisF 17:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

removed phrase

This phrase was removed:

claiming problems with this accepted cosmology

Because the "problems" are not outlined nor are they referenced save the one problem that they "disagree" with the Big Bang because it doesn't allow for a YEC interpretation. Thus it is more NPOV to exclude this statement since their claims are not referenced nor are they verifiable in that formulation. If there are specific claims you want to list that are unique to AiG, make them.

--ScienceApologist 20:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Granted, I haven't read every big bang criticism from AiG, but doesn't this link suggest they do claim problems (plural) with it? DennisF 20:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

This set of links seems poorly vetted, even for AiG. The origin of Jupiter has nothing to do with the Big Bang, for example.

I freely admit that they have "problems" with the Big Bang as indeed they do with almost every other natural science. I also admit that they seem to enjoy trumpeting their own spin with regards to what they see are "problems" in each of those sciences. However singling out the Big Bang as something that has problems is not balanced in my opinion because they also talk about so-called "problems" in nuclear physics, geology, biology, planetary science, archaeology, paleontology, etc. --ScienceApologist 20:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I still don't see the POV but you obviously do. I am willing to concede this point, it's not that important to understanding AiG's views.

I would still like to change the wording of the statement, "They disagree with the Big Bang..." to be "They are critical of the Big Bang…" I think this would be more precise.DennisF 15:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

How about "dispute"? --ScienceApologist 20:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

That's even better. I have also fixed the link sourcing the articles disputing the Big Bang. Thanks for your good edits in this section. DennisF 20:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The horizon problem link was removed since most cosmologists believe the problem is solved. Also quantized redshifts are rejected by most observational astronomers as being non-existent. So I modified that too. --ScienceApologist 13:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your edit on the redshift survey and have added a link to source it as I am sure there will be opposition by many. DennisF 20:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I altered the statement slightly since it isn't just "disputed" but outright falsified. --ScienceApologist 14:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Apologetics section

I made some minor changes to the remove some POV and a misleading statement from the Apologetics section.

First, the statement However, a person open to both evolution and creation will see the overwhelming possibility of a rapid formation by catastrophic quantities of water is blatantly POV.

Also, the statement AiG tries to present primarily 'scientific' arguments for Creationism is misleading. It makes it sound as if AiG's young earth creationist position is one that they arrived at from scientific evidence. They are very clear that their position is primarily theological and any scientific arguments they make to support their views are secondary.

I also changed the term "secular scientist" to "scientist". There is no need to differentiate the scientists that are in the mainstream.DennisF 15:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Duncharris, Let's talk about why you don't like my edit to the Apologetics section. Instead of just reverting it, we can work together to fix any problems you see with it. DennisF 16:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I've but my edit back in. Apparently this was a hit and run.

Edit to the intro

Ashmoo, Why did you remove that entire sentence in the intro?[2] Couldn't it have been fixed instead? DennisF 14:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't remove it. It was user:220.245.180.134 . Ashmoo 22:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for how to handle criticisms

Is the section Criticisms of specific claims made by Answers in Genesis really needed? There are plenty of web pages that do this, and the claims aren't limited to AIG. PrometheusX303 14:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I am in favor of removing it or replacing it with some better criticisms. Right now, the only criticisms remaining in the section include the questions "Why aren't dino and human fossils found side by side?" and "Where did all the water from Noah's flood go?" Both arguments from ignorance. DennisF 13:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm also in favour of a revamp of the criticism section. These are the problems I see:

1. I think the question format is very poor style for an encyclopedia.
2. It is too much in the debate style. I think it needs to just state the criticisms, without any 'however AIG point out...' and subsequent retorts.
3. All criticisms need to be cited. The section should report criticisms, not be an attempt by an editor to convince the reader that AiG is wrong.
4. It is too long. Just the most important, AiG specific criticisms should be included.

Similarly, I think the main text should just report what AiG believe/claim and all criticisms saved for the Criticism section.

Ashmoo 23:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of keeping all criticisms in a separate section but a decision like this would need agreement among most of the frequent editors.

I also agree that criticisms shouldn't need an AiG retort if they are written correctly. Criticisms should be written from the standpoint of understanding AiG's positions. For example, the criticism that we previously had of the "distant starlight problem" was poorly written because it didn't take into account Humphrey's model which AiG presents as a possible answer to that problem. A better written criticism would be one directed specifically at Humphrey's model and not already answered by an existing AiG article. DennisF 13:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Do we really need the section "Is Answers in Genesis a scientific organization?"

This article is close to exceeding Wikipedia's limit on article size. We are currently at 31K and the limit is 32K. I would like to propose that we remove the section "Is Answers in Genesis a scientific organization?" AiG clearly calls themselves an apologetic ministry so I am not sure how relevant this very large section is. Given that polls show that most people reject a strictly scientific explanation of our origins, I don't think anybody's opinion of AiG will be swayed by pointing out that they don't follow strict scientific methodology. If editors feel this section needs to stay, then I would like to see it condensed. We can also free up space by eliminating the weak arguments that currently make up the "Criticisms of specific claims made by Answers in Genesis". The section on Race is also disproportionally large and needs to be trimmed. DennisF 21:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on 99% of what you've said here. The only thing I'd say, is that, while AiG do tout themselves as primarily an apologetic organisation, they do in fact claim that many of their views are scientific, so I think their is some scope for the issue to be addressed. Having said that, I think, to keep the size down and maintain POV, we should only include criticisms from published authors that are cited. We need to avoid a talk.origins style debate in the article.

I hope it won't cause too much of a stir if I delete all the uncited material from the article. Regards, Ashmoo 23:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that they do model themselves as scientific. Don't they self publish creation science papers in their own journal? These are the papers that are said to be the scientific out put of creation science. Given that premise, i assume they consider themselves as a scientific publisher, at least. I would not worry about the size limit, there are quite a few articles over 40k. Nevertheless, shorter is desirable and certainly unsourced or redundent info should be considered for deletion. David D. (Talk) 23:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The AiG publish a journal called TJ. I haven't read it, but I think it is in the scientific journal style. And wikipedia does have a recommendation to keep article under 30k (see the 'article size' link at the beginning of this section). But I think deleting fluff, tit-for-tat debating and uncited material is more important that just reducing the size. Ashmoo 00:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section

Another problem I just noticed: the section labelled 'Criticism' is actually a discussion on the religious beliefs of a critic of AiG and contains no actual criticism. This looks like the wreckage of an edit war and really needs to be fixed. Ashmoo 02:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Heavy-handed reversions

Some people are reverting lots of changes without explanation (except maybe POV-pushing, as if they don't push their own atheistic POV). They should be more careful, because they are also putting back typos when they act so heavy-handedly.

The claim that "biologists" oppose AiG is POV. AiG includes Ph.D. biologists. So it should state "critics".

It is crass to keep putting back claims that natural selection invalidates teh specific creationists probability arguments, when they have pointed out, citing Dobzhansky, that natural selection cannot apply before self-reproduction, so cannot explain the first self-replicator.

Some critics don't understand the role of axioms. E.g. the Copernican principle is one; it is not the result of science, but a framework by which scientific results are interpreted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.245.180.134 (talk • contribs) .

I have not looked at the article recently but AiG's probability argument is wrong. For example, AiG assumes the first replicator is a cell but the first replicator would have been a macromolecule not a cell. Dobzhansky did not say the first replicator was a cell that is AIG spin. So it is valid to say that natural selection could lead to the first cell.

With regard to biologists that is a fair claim. If it makes you feel better it could say "99.5% of biologists" which is an accurate representation of the current state. David D. (Talk) 05:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Axioms are useless if the data does not support them. David D. (Talk) 05:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

David D is unreasonably dogmatic about the state of current chemical evolutionary theories. Many of them do regard a cell as the first replicator, since there is no example of a true molecular self-replicator. So Dobzhansky's argument still holds, and was accurately cited by AiG, despite David D's spin. Also, 99.9% of biologists haven't a clue about chemical evolution, and it has no practical application for their work.220.245.180.134 03:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It is simply not true that there is no example of a "true molecular self-replicator". In particular, RNA has been shown to be able to reproduce itself (which is why the RNA world hypothesis was developed in the first place). --ScienceApologist 03:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Not true at all. Read the article! No way is RNA self-replicatiing. Template-directed formation of a few short chains from activated nucleotides is hardly the same. The RNA world hypothesis was extrapolated from the observation that some RNA can act as an enzyme.220.245.180.134 05:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

No way is RNA self-replicatiing. Tell that to the molecular biologist who see RNA self-replicating all the time. --ScienceApologist 14:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Language in edit notes

Could we please tone down the language in the edit notes? Some editors have been repeatably accusing others of bullying, mendacious vandalism, rank hypocrisy and being lazy, POV pushers and hypocrites. This sort of language borders on abusive.

Everyone here is just trying to make the article as good as possible according to their own point of view. I presume everyone has read Wikiquette? Please see What_vandalism_is_not before accusing people of vandalism. Regards, Ashmoo 02:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Tifft's claims

As AiG makes reference to Tift's claims which are hopelessly outdated, it makes little sense to include the reference to Tift's work as a rather biased appeal to authority. The fact is that quantized redshifts were falsified in a wonderfully well-written paper that just came out this year. So if we are to include the fact that AiG makes these arguments, we are going to have to be honest about their inability to keep up-to-date. —ScienceApologist 03:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hopelessly outdated? What rot! Tifft's work spans >20 years, and the most recent paper was 1997. So why should we take a single redshift survey as gospel when the science is in flux?220.245.180.134 03:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to rethink your shoot-from-the-hip approach to this. Tift did write his last paper in 1997 — since then literally millions of redshifts have been measured with no statistical evidence for quantized redshifts whatsoever. The point is that this "single" redshift survey provides orders of magnitude more data that Tift has ever worked with. — ScienceApologist 03:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

That's debatable, Hawkins et al. didn't seem to deal with the same things as Tifft, but "1647 QSO-galaxy pairs". According to Napier and Guthrie:

The current status of a continuing programme of tests for redshift periodicity or 'quantization' of nearby bright galaxies is described. So far the redshifts of over 250 galaxies with high-precision HI profiles have been used in the study. In consistently selected sub-samples of the datasets of sufficient precision examined so far, the redshift distribution has been found to be strongly quantized in the galactocentric frame of reference. The phenomenon is easily seen by eye and apparently cannot be ascribed to statistical artefacts, selection procedures or flawed reduction techniques. Two galactocentric periodicities have so far been detected, ~71.5 km s(sup -1) in the Virgo cluster, and ~37.5 km s(sup -1) for all other spiral galaxies within ~2600 km s(sup -1). The formal confidence levels associated with these results are extremely high. Quantized Redshifts: A Status Report

The Burbidge Napier paper was written not long before the Hawkins et al. one, and the latter didn't mention Tifft. Geoffrey Burbidge still argues in a later paper:

Redshifts of gamma-ray burst (GRB) sources ... together with the redshifts for seven quasars ... show a remarkable tendency to cluster about several of the periodic redshift peaks previously established for QSOs.The Sources of Gamma-Ray Bursts and Their Connections with QSOs and Active Galaxies, 2003

Fred Hoyle, Burbidge and Narlikar's book A Different Approach to Cosmology (2000) demonstrates that redshift distributions present a stepwise histogram. Hartnett argues:

However, unless an independent method is available to select the correct cosmological redshift for a quasar, the periodicity is washed out. In Hawkins et al., close proximity (within 30 arcminutes of the centre of the nearby galaxy) was the criterion, but closer attention should be made to identify the parent galaxy. (Quantized quasar redshifts in a creationist cosmology, TJ 18(2):105–113, 2004.

You can remain ignorant of the current analysis of statistical relationships between quasars and galaxies and the current data from redshift surveys, but such ignorance is hardly encyclopedic. Quote mining from various nonstandard cosmologists doesn't help your cause much. --ScienceApologist 07:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

And saying "My sources are better than yours" will not let you get away with bald assertions on the main article.203.213.77.138 04:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Horizon problem reference

If you are going to include the horizon problem you should be honest and admit that the horizon problem is not considered a problem for the Big Bang by those scientists who describe the problem as it is resolved by cosmic inflation. Or are you going to criticize inflation as well? There is some point at which description descends into editorializing. --ScienceApologist 03:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's a very recent article from New Scientist that seems to suggest the "horizon problem" isn't solved. It's listed as #2 in a list of 13 things that don't make sense.

Since this is an article about AiG, then views that AiG holds and frequently cite are relevant. It doesn't matter that some scientists consider the problem solved. DennisF 20:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not "some scientists", it's the vast majority of cosmologists. The New Scientist has an editor on its board that is a friend of Arp and reports on some rather cranky nonmainstream cosmology from time-to-time, and is generally not a good resource for this material. --ScienceApologist 14:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, a true explanation must go from known to unknown. Cosmic inflation is not a true explanation, since the inflaton field that supposedly cause it is still regarded as hypothetical. Rather, inflation was a mathematical construct designed to solve the horizon problem, rather than a known phenomenon. The AiG article points out that inflation still lacks a known physical mechanism to start and stop it.220.245.180.134 05:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

No, the inflaton field doesn't need to be "theoretical" at all since scalar fields are observed in nature. The physical mechanisms for such a field are very well known, despite AiG's remarkable ignorance on the subject. --ScienceApologist 14:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, AtheismApologist knows more than the Ph.D. astrophysicist who wrote the article, as well as Lerner et al. who call the Inflaton "hypothetical". Hypothesizing about phase changes is hardly the same as producing a real physical mechanism to start and stop faster-than-light expansion of space.220.245.180.134 04:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I am freely available to discuss factual matters at any time. Your appeals to authority and ignorance of these subjects don't impress me. --ScienceApologist 07:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

And your bluffing and appeal to your own authority impresses no-one.203.213.77.138 04:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Totally disputed tag

The additions made by one particular creationist editor are factually inaccurate in some cases and definitely not WP:NPOV. Until these egregious errors are corrected, the tag will remain. --ScienceApologist 03:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

What's the last good version? Guettarda 04:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The current one seems good. David D. (Talk) 04:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is a single definitive version. Various edits have contributed text that seems reasonable, mixed with re-re-re-introducing the "cash cow" blog. Weregerbil 04:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

From my end, the current version looks fine (I'm mostly interested in making sure the astronomy/cosmology section isn't factually incorrect/POV). However, I'm not convinced that this version is stable given the truculent advocacy of the anon user and the inclination to include the bit on monies for leaders. --ScienceApologist 06:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the edit war that's going on between SA and the anon editor. Honestly, I haven't followed every volley. I've noticed that one disagreement is about whether the Copernican Principal should be labeled as philosophical. Why is there disagreement over this? When I go to the Wikipedia article on the Copernican Principal, it states in the opening line that it is a philosophical statement.

I agree with your placement of the totally disputed tag, but I think it belongs there because of the section on AiG salaries. DennisF 20:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The Copernican principle isn't simply philosophical. It is an assumption that is subject to falsification. Sometimes it is formulated as a philosophical "principle" (e.g. it's always a good bet that you aren't special), but applied to these ideas of cosmology it is a testable (and tested) statement about the nature of our non-preferred position in the universe. —ScienceApologist 20:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Then you need to argue this on the Copernican principle page, which states that it IS philosphical. And you are simply wrong, as Edwin Hubble admitted:

‘Such a condition [these red shifts] would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, ... But the unwelcome supposition of a favored location must be avoided at all costs ... is intolerable ... moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory because the theory postulates homogeneity.’ (The Observational Approach to Cosmology, Clarendon, Oxford, 1937.)

I.e. he admitted that the actual observations made it seem like we were near the centre of the universe, but he rejected it for philosophical reasons.220.245.180.134 05:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The Copernican principle has been measured. Check out Big Bang#Theoretical underpinnings. --ScienceApologist 14:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

If that's true, then the article you referenced needs to be updated. It says "There are efforts underway to test the Copernican Principle". DennisF 19:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

That's honesty in reporting. The studies have been completed, but the papers are still in preparation. --ScienceApologist 07:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Since the Copernican Principle is still in the testing phase, then it currently is still philosophical, thus it is not unscientific to formulate cosmological models without it. Indeed, Stephen Hawking's colleague George Ellis agrees with me and not AtheismApologist User:ScienceApologist:

People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations … For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. … You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that. (Profile: George F.R. Ellis by W. Wayt Gibbs; Thinking Globally, Acting Universally, Scientific American 273(4):28, 29.)220.245.180.134 04:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Before the advent of so-called "precision cosmology" which was heralded by redshift surveys and WMAP Ellis was right. However, we are no longer in that era and are not bound to simply philosophizing but can test our fundamental assumptions today. You are in dire need of an update on your science. --ScienceApologist 07:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Bluffing won't work on me. It is abundantly clear that the observation of redshifted galaxies is consistent with a galactocentric cosmology, and that Hubble and others excluded this for philosophical reasons. And you have admitted that the cosmological principle is still being tested.203.213.77.138 04:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, could someone please explain the difference between the cosmological principle and the Copernican principle which are stated to be separate assumptions. I thought they were the same thing, and the definitions seem to be merely different ways of saying the same thing.220.245.180.134 04:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

In layman's terms: the cosmological principle states that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic, but one could still have a homogeneous and isotropic universe and, for example, be in a preferred position where the universe simply is conspired to be homogeneous and isotropic. The Copernican Principle is the (tested) proposition that it isn't that we are in a preferred position but rather it is that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic without preference for position. --ScienceApologist 07:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Salary section

(moved to put all the discussion in one place) agapetos_angel 01:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Removing the "Cash Cow" section

This is an encyclopedia entry not a blog for personal views. Encyclopedia entries don't make judgments on the appropriateness of someone's salary or discourage it's readers from making donations.

Beside the blatant POV pushing, this section is poorly sourced. The NPTimes is a survey of 209 non-profits who voluntarily responded to the survey. CharityNavigator has a study from 4,000 charities that are required to make their financial information publicly available. If you look at CharityNavigator's CEO compensation study, you will see that Ken Ham's pay falls right in line with the averages compared to other charities with similar revenue.

Also, the salaries that were posted for other staff members are not sourced. Even if they can be sourced, there is nothing extraordinary about what they are being paid. DennisF 13:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. That section was just so POV I wonder why the OP even bothered. Ashmoo 23:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Replacing section minus last sentence. The salaries ARE extraordinary for NP ministry. Even your own source states same (thanks for the supporting link)--you didn't check the graphic, evidently, that showed "Religion" at less than $100,000pa, which is exactly what the NPTimes survey states. This is an encyclopedia entry, yes, and ministry (especially nonprofit) has always been called to meet their objective without lining their pockets. As a Christian, and a YEC, I am ashamed of how Ham is taking advantage of others, and call him out to not become the next Jim Bakker. 58.162.255.242 23:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the facts as you've presented them. But unfortunately, if I'm not mistaken, this is Original Research on your part, which is not permitted on wikipedia. If you have a cite to a 3rd party who is complaining about Ham's salary, please provide it. Ashmoo 23:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Original research is not permitted on wikipedia? This is public record, and as such, has been reported. 58.162.255.242 00:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

That's right, No O.R. is a wikipedia policy. Although all the facts are public record, it is you who have brought them together and analysed them to determine that Ham is making a lot more than others in his position, is it not?. I appreciate what you are doing, but wikipedia doesn't allow it. Ashmoo 00:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken in that this is original research. It is what Wiki calls "source-based research" ("Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research," it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." emphasis mine) The information presented is from valid, public record. 58.162.255.242 00:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

But you are not just reporting sources, but also adding analysis. In the Original research article you mentioned, under What is excluded? section it says: introduces a synthesis of established facts in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing the synthesis to a reputable source . Unless you have a source to a 3rd party that has complained about Ham's salary, it is OR. Regards, Ashmoo 00:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

PS. I apologise for my snarkiness in my original comment on this thread. It was uncalled for. Ashmoo 00:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology. Ham has been reported by the Kentucky Post as responding to salary criticism (My personal POV answer to that is "well, Dobson took no salary for 27 years {nor does the new CEO}", but I won't post that in the article). Is that sufficient enough a resource (newspaper)? Or do you need more than that? As I said before, salaries of ministry leaders have been called into question before (can provide sources of that if you think necessary), and likewise, this needs to be addressed. 58.162.255.242 00:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It would be good to get some opinions on this from other editors. Myself, I think the issue needs to be presented as 'Mr. X has criticised Ken Ham's salary saying it is 50% higher than the average'. We need to report criticisms, not present arguments. The 'some critics' thing needs to be avoided, we need to name the critics. My understanding is that newspapers are acceptable sources for wikipedia. Your research, however well done and accurate isn't allowed, as I understand the rules. Ashmoo 01:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Ham defending his salary needs to be shown as insufficient that there is indeed criticism. I have added the source where he defends himself, and changed the 'some critics'. 58.162.255.242 01:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The Cash Cow section still reads like an entry in someone's blog. Encyclopedia entries are not supposed to make judgments. This Cash Cow section comes off as accusing Ken Ham of taking an unfair salary. That's original research and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you have a noteworthy source that accuses Ken Ham of accepting an unfair salary, then you can reference that. I have done some googling to try to find such criticism and could only find the Kentucky Post article that you have already referenced. I can accept the statement you made of Ken Ham defending his salary but I question if this is really necessary in this article if his compensation is comparable to other charity's with similar expense amounts. If you look at this webpage and scroll down to the chart that compares CEO compensation based on the amount of expenses, you will see that Ken Ham's compensation falls within the averages. I think the comparison based on the amount of expenses is much more fair than comparing it to other charities based simply on category.

I just looked at AiG's 2004 tax statement on the Guidestar website. It lists Ken Ham's compensation as $121,000 with $63,000 in expenses. I need to do some research but I am guessing this means Ham was reimbursed for travel expenses (if he really travels 70% of the time, then $63K is justifiable). If I am right, that means his actual salary is only $121,000. Anybody who thinks Ken Ham is being over compensated at $121K doesn't understand reality in the United States. I'll get back on my findings of what this "expense" column in AiG's tax form means. DennisF 14:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

My research suggests that the expenses paid to Ken Ham on AiG's 2004 form 990 could be reimbursement for travel related expenses or could be expense accounts such as one for housing. Without having access to Ken Ham's personal tax records, we have no way of knowing if the $63K was an expense account perk or just reimbursement for all the travel he paid for out of his own pocket.

Regardless, Ken Ham's compensation was 2.33% of AiG's total expenses in 2004 which is below the average of 4.34% for religious charities and is below the average for all charity categories. Average CEO compensation does vary by the size of the charity and any analysis that ignores the size of AiG when comparing them to other charities is flawed and does not belong in this article. DennisF 17:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The size of AiG is not ignored (just > than $10M revenue) but is listed in the article, and taken into account for comparison to other nonprofits. See below for my answer regarding 'all' charity categories (which is a flawed comparison) 58.162.255.242 00:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Beyond the discussion of whether or not Mr. Ham's salary is excessive, the section is undoubtedly POV. The fact that the figures are boldface for emphasis reeks of POV, as does the italicization "more than double the survey's average". And, in addition to those POV flags is the section title, which is as "unencyclopedic" as possible. In addition, this is all original research. Ken Ham's salary is already listed in a NPOV fashion in the Ken Ham article; until the material in this section is written in a NPOV, encyclopedic way, there is no place for it on WP. In addition, it appears there is mainly one individual who is repeatedly reposting this information (on the Ken Ham article as well). I am removing the information for now. Drew 21:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The correct procedure is fixing the what you claim is POV, not wholesale vandalism of the information.

Whether it is "excessive" is POV, sure, but it is worth comparing to the other major creationist organization Institute for Creation Research which has been around much longer, and whose president earns much less than the staff cited (most of whom seem unknown to the creationist world), and doesn't claim huge expenses. Readers can draw their own conclusion from this information, so quit censoring it!58.162.255.242 23:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have missing the point of my comments. The Wikipedia guidelines says that it is forbidden to write anything that introduces a synthesis of established facts in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing the synthesis to a reputable source. YOU have introduced a synthesis of facts. I'm not disagreeing that it is accurate or fair, it is just that wikipedia is not the place for investigative journalism. Ashmoo 23:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The overall percentage includes overpaid Health officers in nonprofit (complaining refs available anywhere in google). Adding that in obfucates the issue to a point of nonsense. 58.162.255.242 00:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, I've added a quote and link from Charity Navigator which confirms what I've said about religion being the lowest paid CEOs 58.162.255.242 00:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's put this another way, so all are clear in what is excluded and what is not. The synthesis is established by Ham defending his salary. The facts are from reputable sources, one of which AiG-US cites on their website (Guidestar), including IRS records, newspaper accounts, Charity Navigator, etc. From the established synthesis (that I reported, not introduced in the manner accused) that the salary needed to be defended against critics, the facts are given to support or negate that synthesis. 58.162.255.242 00:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you please provide a cite to an article that argues that Ken Ham makes more than other CEOs in his position? I don't mean Ken Ham defending his pay, but someone saying that he makes more than others. Ashmoo 01:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not necessary. 58.162.255.242 02:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It is if you want to prove it isn't Original Research. I really think you need to go read the Wikipedia article on Original Research. I mean, the whole thing. Ashmoo 02:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest you do the same. The onus is on the accuser. 58.162.255.242 03:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC) But to satisfy your curiosity, here's one from Lexington's weekly newspaper, the Ace Weekly [3] "It's all about making money," says Jennifer Warner, who owns a bed and breakfast guesthouse two miles from the proposed site. "They're masquerading behind this Creation museum because they can make more money when they claim religious discrimination. They've worked all the Baptist churches."

I've reworded this section, and included other references. 58.162.255.242 04:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion of reading the OR article wasn't meant to be facetious, sorry if you got that impression. After we started this discussion I did go an reread it myself. From my understanding of the policy your work is OR. My feeling is eventually an admin is going to come and rule it needs to be taken out, so it seems a shame for you to do all this work for nothing. You also said The onus is on the accuser. What is the onus on me to do? I will happily comply with whatever procedure is required. Regards, Ashmoo 02:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm still in favor of having this section regarding Ken Ham's pay removed.

Beside the point of being original research, it's just plain wrong. NPTimes data is based on a voluntary survey of 209 organizations. CharityNavigator is based on several thousands of charities that had no choice of being included. This makes the data summarized by CharityNavigator more scientific (I couldn't resist that). I have already stated that CharityNavigator's data shows Ken Ham is paid less than the average charity CEO (based on percentage of total expenses) regardless of category or region. To ignore this fact and make other comparisons that ignore the size of the charities is dishonest and spinning the truth. Unless there is something sensational to report, there is no reason that an article about AiG needs to list how much their CEO and each vice-president makes. Heck, I'm a nobody on the bottom of the org chart with nothing more than a 4 year degree and make as much as these vice-presidents. Unless somebody can make the case that these people are being paid more than average, then I don't think this information contributes to the article. DennisF 17:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, DennisF, but you are just wrong. That the survey is voluntary has no bearing, and 209 is a fair representation across many regions (born out by the data from CharityNavigator which reports similar figures). Furthermore, it is unscientific to ignore that the data from CharityNavigator, as I've pointed out, outlines nonprofit/religion figures opposed to, say, nonprofit/health (reports showing that health based CEO, which skew figures in noncategorical renderings and necessitate the divisions in the other graph, are overpaid). The information shows, regardless of your personal (i.e., POV/unsupported research) payscale, that they do make more than the nonprofit average. I've removed any of my own POV (neither mentioned nor obvious), and simply related the facts. If they bother you, or you feel you need to defend them, that's not my concern. 58.162.255.242 05:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, regarding your comment about 'dishonest and spinning the truth', (rich when I did not lump all the nonprofits together, but offered a more exact comparison), Focus on the Family's revenue is $136,611,180 for 2004, and their CEO takes no salary. Should that be included to satisfy the size comparison? Furthermore, as I provided a source, CharityNavigator does not factor a CEO's salary into the ratings they give [4], so your point is flawed. 58.162.255.242 05:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Still is a blog rant, not an encyclopedia entry. The author's own viewpoint is mentioned or obvious - and almost every other bullet point in that section. This is not encyclopedic information at all, it is someone's personal campaign against some people. Weregerbil 18:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of my personal feelings, the only point is that there is critical complaint from a reputable source about them being in it for the money, Ham defended his salary as reported in a reputable source, the data shows the averages in straightforward formatting from a number of reputable sources. 58.162.255.242 05:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the section again. There are 3 editors who have expressed opinions stating it violates Wikipedia policy. Nobody except the original editor is supporting it. Out it goes! DennisF 13:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Some of you may be wondering why I am contributing to a section that I believe needs to be removed.

I think we have already seen that the original author of this section disregards the consensus of other editors that it doesn't belong in the article. I am hoping that by adding factual data to this section that contradicts the editors research that they will more willing to let go it and remove the section entirely. DennisF 18:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

...and *poof* your edits are gone. I have a suspicion that won't be a successful way to work with a person with a mission and a "delete" key. Weregerbil 13:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The anon editor used lack of sources as a reason to remove them so I put them back in with a source link for every single phrase I have added. It doesn't make sense that the same webpage should have to be referenced ad nauseam in a single section. If that's what is required to keep my edits in there, so be it.

I also added a quote from Charity Navigator "before you make any judgments about salaries ..., we encourage you to look at CEO pay as a percentage of total expenses".[5] I wonder if this will tip off the anon editor that he is taking data out of context when he compares Ken Ham's salary to averages comprised of smaller charities. DennisF 18:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

This section is ridiculously long. One paragraph at most should be devoted to this topic. David D. (Talk) 18:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Does this section even need to be in the article at all? I would like to see the entire "Tax-exemption" and "Salary" sections removed as they provide no useful information. A brief statement that AiG is a non-profit charity is all we need.

When I look at Wikipedia articles for other charities such as the [American Red Cross], you don't see any of this. Unless there are sources that show AiG is overpaying their CEO compared to other similar charities (with an emphasis on similar, comparing AiG to mom-and-pop charities isn't fair) then I think it should be removed. I also think the section on their tax-exemption status is meaningless. So what if some new staff member didn't correctly fill out their paperwork for their tax-exemption status? Unless it can be shown that this mistake would somehow benefit AiG, then it isn't worth mentioning. From what I can see, AiG is a financially responsible charity. Their Charity Navigator rating is close to 4 stars (their highest rating). These sections that point out factual, yet meaningless, information that I suppose is to help us imagine something corrupt is going on in AiG don't belong in this article.

Should we take a poll to see if other editors agree that these sections should be deleted from the article? DennisF 19:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

This section is too long and not very important. In any event, I'm pretty familiar with a lot of the criticism of AiG and I very rarely see salary as an issue that is discussed. I think the section should be removed. JoshuaZ 23:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Jennifer Warner quote

It sounds good for the opposition, but is it simply opinion, or is someone claiming she has the authority to make such a claim? PrometheusX303 14:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems that Warner is part of a lawsuit against AiG. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4062.asp

Included is this: 26. Jennifer Warner has stated that a primary purpose of her opposition to AiG is her fear that in the event the AiG zone change is granted that it will lead to the zoning approval of a limestone mine in the vicinity of her property and the AiG property. The true purpose of this appeal is not to appeal the decision of the AiG development. The ulterior motive is to stop the limestone mine rezoning, and to litigate and publicize her opposition to the AiG organization.PrometheusX303 18:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, item 26 that you quoted was a charge made by AiG in their counter suit and not an opinion of the court. DennisF 18:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Overinflation of Salary Section to justify deletion

There are some editors who insist on adding content to inflate it and create a strawman that it is too large and must be deleted for that reason. I am going to pare it down to just the facts, which are valid to the article. agapetos_angel 10:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

When you "pared it down to the facts", you also removed some of my facts. You are accusing me of playing unfairly but somehow my factual additions to your section keep getting removed for one excuse or another.

Please tell me why your section is not a violation of Wikipedia's policy regarding no original research?

It is a policy violation to carry on your own analysis.

If you want to have an analysis of Ken Ham's pay, then you need to report on the analysis of a reputable source. Jennifer Warner is not this reputable source. She is not an expert, she's someone who is angry at AiG for building the creation museum near her home. She sued AiG and AiG countersued her for defamation. Just because you found a quote in a newspaper where she attacks AiG does this make it worth mentioning in an encyclopedia entry and becoming a springboard for you to dive into your own analysis.

If you want to have a section dedicated to an analysis of Ken Ham's pay, then go find an expert who has done that analysis and report on it. If you do find that expert source, we don't need to see the entire analysis reposted in the article. Mention it and then link to it.

Also, it's not vandalism when editors remove your section after discussing it and coming to a consensus that it needs to be removed. Please read the Wikipedia policy on consensus.

Please, let's have a discussion instead of an edit war. DennisF 18:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I think both Dennis and I agree that this salary section is original research at best and gossip at worst. Just to clarify, I disagree with almost every position that AiG takes with regard to science and politics. Nevertheless, this attack on Hamm's salary is completely unjustified. David D. (Talk) 19:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

This section is well sourced. Expert or not, two newspapers local to the offices chose to print Warner's quote in articles favorable to AiG US. Ham's own decision to defend his salary in another newspaper illustrates that salary criticism is more than a trival/gossip issue. Given the sourced facts from Guidestar, NPT, and CN, the reader can make his or her own analysis/conclusions. It is wrong to inflate the section with things that are completely trival, only to later complain that the section is too large. It is enough, for example, to call Warner a critic and source the article where the lawsuit is discussed, than to pad the section by putting all the points of the lawsuit in an article that is neither about Warner nor the lawsuit. It is akin to a court case that takes up taxpayers' time and money to declare all the reasons why someone is a hostile witness, rather than just allowing it into evidence that he or she is one and sticking to the facts of the case. Warner may have sucked her thumb as a child, but that doesn't belong in this article either. agapetos_angel 00:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

You may be confusing me with another editor. I did complain about it being too long but I have not written a single word of the salary section. David D. (Talk) 06:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, Dennis, some of your 'points' were merely wordy repetition of the same points made elsewhere. For example, the area where the US office is located is discussed in the paragraph about regional averages, and the fact that size and area should be taken into account is covered. Another verbose paragraph on those topics is unnecessary. agapetos_angel 00:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Please reread the section of Wikipedia policy on no original research and tell me where an exception is made for original research that is well sourced. It isn't. If you want a section in the article that is critical of Ken Ham's salary, then source your analysis out to someone who is in a position to make this judgement.

I'll ask you again, please tell me why this section is not a violation of the no original research policy?

Do you understand what a consensus is? Are you will to respect the consensus of other editors in this matter? DennisF 12:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm assuming agapetos_angel and User:58.162.255.242 are the same person. Is so, I'd ask you this question: David D., DennisF, weregerbil, Drew and I (ashmoo) all think that your work counts as Original Research. Don't you think you need to consider the possibility that it is actually OR and your understanding of wiki policy is mistaken, at this point? The consensus seems to be to remove the section, at this point, so putting it back in would be considered violation of wiki policy. Ashmoo 23:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

58.162.255.242 became frustrated and I stepped in. Ashmoo, re: Consensus: "it may be advisable to follow it, it is not however policy". Don't you think you need to consider the possibility that it is actually not OR, and this is merely Argumentum ad populum.

I am willing to work the edits, but to remove the whole section smacks of censorship. "Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source". Therefore, 'well sourced' is precisely the point. The founding of the original research policy was to prevent people from publishing their theories on Wikipedia, rather than in a (physics) journal or similar. I realize that bandwagoning is an unfortunate side effect of rampant misapplication, but perhaps the editors that Ashmoo listed should review the policy in its entirety, rather than just citing it exists.

"Research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged ... we report what other reliable secondary sources have published, whether or not we regard the material as accurate" [6]. "An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments".[7] Warner proposed the argument, Ham defended it. agapetos_angel 01:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think my comments are 'ad populum' as I previously have provided many arguments which were never addressed. I made mention of the list of editors merely for perspective.

You are right about consensus, I worded my point too strongly.

But more importantly, Warner simply said that they are 'in it for the money'. User:58.162.255.242 then added a long analysis of data in an attempt to show that 'AiG CEOs make more than the average'. These are two seperate statements. There's no 3rd party source stating that AiG CEOs make more than the average. The text is advocating a position, not reporting one (ie 'proposing an idea or argument' from the OR policy). Regards, Ashmoo 01:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Ashmoo. This appears to be the crux of the disagreement. User58 did have analysis, which I think I've removed in my edit. However, "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources" includes, I believe, the collecting and organizing of information to go along with the (existing/sourced) statements made by Warner and Ham. If Ham had not been shown to defend his salary, you might have had a point there. However, showing the actual facts of the matter (Guidestar/Charity Navigator/Nonprofit Times) to go along with Ham's statement, to whatever conclusion the reader makes, is NPOV. This is different, for instance, than the dispute I am having in the Sarfati article where a group of editors are trying to get together and push (their own) 'some critics' POV. The section in that article is totally unsupported. The one here is not. Ham's defence of his salary is the nail in the coffin IMO (regardless of Warner's statement, Ham's defence is enough to show it's not OR). As I said, I'm willing to work with the other editors on editing POVs they think still exist, but leave the section in because it is well supported, and as a whole, not OR. If the CEO of AiG US doesn't make more than the average nonprofit CEO of a religious organization, the facts will bear that out and show his defence is correct. agapetos_angel 08:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Ashmoo, see if this was an acceptable compromise (see article) agapetos_angel 08:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I clearly see the salary section as violating the no original research policy. I quote directly from that article:

"An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments. That is: … it introduces a synthesis of established facts in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing the synthesis to a reputable source."

Isn't that exactly what this salary section has done? It has proposed that Ken Ham and other AiG staff are over paid, not by citing reputable sources that have studied charity salaries, but by selectively choosing the data that is reported in such a way to favor the editor's opinion?

In fact, I have tried to include quotes from a reputable source in the area of charity CEO salaries. I posted the quote from Charity Navigator "before you make any judgments about salaries ..., we encourage you to look at CEO pay as a percentage of total expenses"[8] and posted data that shows Ham's salary is very typical when you view it as a percentage of total expenses yet this expert source and related data was censored because it apparently went against the POV of the author who wrote this section.

I'll ask the question about Jennifer Warner again. Why does her quote warrant an inclusion in the section on salaries? What knowledge does she have about the subject? It appears her quote was taken out of context to make it sound as if she is a knowledgeable source on AiG's fundraising methods and has some special insight into their motives. In reality, she is just a ticked off neighbor of the Creation Museum and has been involved in a lawsuit against AiG. She has admitted to comparing Ken Ham to Hitler and Jim Jones (a cult leader). Shouldn't the lawsuits and the name calling disqualify her from being quoted as a reputable source? Clearly her remarks are not driven by any special knowledge, but by an anti-AiG bias. The fact that agapetos_angel considers her a primary source for the salary section shows the lack of expert sources who critical of Ham's salary.

I think the current edit is much better than the last. Even if gets edited down to nothing more than a statement of salaries by those working for AiG, I have to ask why this information needs to be in the article? Do other Wikipedia articles on charities mention salaries unless there was clearly some controversy surrounding it. I have tried googling for websites that are critical of Ken Ham's salary to see if such a controversy exists and the only thing that shows up are Wikipedia articles. Another clear sign that this is original research. If the salary section isn't original research, then why is it that Wikipedia articles are the only websites that comes up on Google being critical of Ham's salary (sorry, the Warner quote was not a comment to Ham's salary)?

BTW, I think whatever resolution comes about on this topic needs to be applied to the salary section in the Ken Ham article. There should be no reason to have to go through this long discussion twice. DennisF 16:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I would refer you back to Ham defending his salary, sufficient (regardless of attempted googles) to show it is not original research. Ham's defence is the synthesis. Other Wikipedia articles have included statements by the article's subject, and given sourced material to accompany that statement (refuting or supporting it). Ham's statement of defence is born out (or refuted--depending on your personal conclusions) by the referenced material. To merely say that Ham is overpaid would be POV, but this section does not do that. There is the complaint, the defence, the facts of the $$, a comparison to other leading religious organizations (one creation based, one merely theology based, which I think is fair), and links to Guidestar (whom AiG USA links from their own website), and other reputable sources. You may draw any conclusion you like as to what I personally believe, but that has no bearing on the fact that this is not original research when there is a pre-existing synthesis by Ham (and who could be considered a more reputable source that the CEO?). I do not disagree that Warner is biased, ergo calling her a 'critic', but I don't believe the quote (from a reputable source) should be removed just because you (or I) believe her to be anti-AiG. If that were a basis for concern, then Stear's criticism should be removed, as should anything concerning anyone who disagrees with AiG USA or Ham. Bias should be indicated, not biased testimony eliminated. As I said, calling her a critic shows her bias (as calling Stear an atheist shows his). agapetos_angel 20:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Overinflated/part duex

I apologise for being abrupt, but I think you are confused about what 'synthesis' means. Ham's comment isn't synthesis. Synthesis is collecting facts to support a conclusion. Ham's comment is a single line statement. The sythesis we are referring to is collecting the Guidestar data to show that Ham makes more than the average. Just because Ham has commented on his salary doesn't give wikipedia editors carte blanche to gather data about his and others salaries and post it here. Posting his salary seems fine, but all the rest is analysis.

In the Original Research article under What is excluded? it says this: it introduces an argument (without citing a reputable source for that argument) which purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position; or

Your comparison of salaries seeks to introduce an argument (Ham makes more than average) that purports to support another idea (Ham makes too much)

Lastly, I don't think your analysis is POV or even wrong, just OR. Ashmoo 23:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Very well put Ashmoo.

I will also add that I disagree with agapetos_angel's statement that labeling someone as a critic implies bias in their beliefs. The Jennifer Warner quote does not warrant inclusion in the section about salaries. The context of her quote has nothing to do with salaries. She's just a ticked off neighbor, not an expert providing insights into AiG's organization. Stern and his organization deserve a mention in the article because those familiar with AiG know the Australian Skeptics and AiG frequently exchange words. I agree with Ashmoo that mentioning Ken Ham's salary is ok, but to pretend that Jennifer Warner is a reputable source or that Ken Ham's salary should be compared to that of another CEO who is a volunteer without a salary is silly and doesn't deserve mention in an encyclopedia entry. I agree with JoshuaZ's comment. Even if this isn't OR (which it is), it doesn't deserve mention. I am not aware of any websites or news articles that criticize AiG because of Ken Ham's salary. I don't think it's because the critics are not aware of it, I think that most people don't consider a $185,000 salary outrageous for a person that does the kind of work that Ken Ham does. I am not sure what country you are from or what your employment experience is, but this kind of salary is not untypical in the United States. Personally, if I had the ability to take a position similar to Ken Ham's in exchange for his salary, I would pass. That's a lot of responsibility and a lot of time on the road (I heard him say somewhere that he is on the road 70% of the time) for that kind of money. If I had Ham's talent, I could make a lot more somewhere else. DennisF 14:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

(reducing indent) I disagree with deletion of that section. Ham gives defence that critics need to recognize his salary is not excessive. That postulate (if you'd like) states that his salary is not excessive in response to what was obviously something that was criticised. Ham says his salary is not. Someone asked for a quote where someone said that it was excessive, and Warner's quote, regardless of her leanings (any critic can be shown to have bias--that's why they are a critic, they are against that given POV), said that AiG USA was "in it for the money". So we have two differing viewpoints reported and sourced(which I think is more fair than showing multiple sources for one opinion over the other--see below). Guidestar is linked from the AiG website as a source for 'financial information' [9] (so using information from there could not be considered formulating an analysis, but rather a collecting of information from the primary source to which AiG links). The comparison of salaries doesn't seek to do anything more than show other religious organizations on similar standing/popularity/size. Nowhere do I state that he makes more than average or makes too much. If you draw that conclusion, it's because facts bear that out for you, not because I said so. If you have other major religious organizations that show their CEO's salaries, please do include a couple more for comparison. The ICR one is Creationist, and the FotF is theological based. As I said, I think it's a fair comparison. So we have, again, Ham's statement (negative to salary excess), Warner's statement (positive to AiG monetary excess), source material from AiG (indirectly, they linked to GS), and sources from two major religious organizations for comparison. If I were personally pushing a POV that the salary was excessive, I'd have balanced the scales on the negative 'side' with :

• some anon on a web board [10]--which I think is unfair to use ,
• Henke's more general criticism ("Nevertheless, there is little doubt that many of these YEC ministries survive on the backs of many poor and elderly members that really can't afford to be throwing money at such a hopeless cause")[11] about 'YEC ministries'--not directly about AiG, so wishy-washy,
• or Sharpe's criticism of AiG US speaker/scientist Jason Lisle ("Finally, a big mystery is what is the motivation for Jason Lisle’s involvement with creationism ... Somewhat less favorable explanations are that he is in it for the money ... Getting a research position at a university is difficult, and if you get one it is a lot of hard work with bad pay. Going around the country talking about creationism and writing glossy creationist books is easy and pleasant work, with easy money, and one is at the top of the field with no competition. One can bask in the glory of showing Christians that one is a “true” Christian who knows science" {emphasis mine}) [12]--most valid of these particular three, but Lisle is not on the 990 as one of the top paid

If you think that these sources would be needed to show it's not OR, then please feel free to use any of them. I thought, however, the objective was to keep the section less inflated and to illustrate NPOV by balancing the sources. agapetos_angel 06:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, I don't think there is a way to show it's not OR, because it is OR, for all the reasons I've outlined. I think the Warner, Henke & especially the Sharpe quotes warrant inclusion though. It would be great to get the quote that Ham was responding to when he defended his salary. Ashmoo 07:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it would be good to find who Ham was responding to, but I haven't found it. I felt bad including the Lisle complaint because there isn't a balance. Lisle isn't listed as a top exec or earner in the income tax form, so it seemed to me that that particular quote was actually more gossip. That Ham defended his salary both begins and ends the inclusion of his salary. I didn't see anything from Lisle. agapetos_angel 08:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's a compromise I am willing to offer:

First, remove the entire section on the salary from the Answers in Genesis article. To list salaries as a criticism of AiG is clearly OR. If you search Google, the only webpages that can be found critical of Ken Ham's salary are Wikipedia articles. If that's not a sign of OR, I'm not sure what is. Sorry, the Jennifer Warner quote is not a criticism of salaries. The salary section also needs to be removed from the Ken Ham article.

Second, create a new section on Ken Ham's salary for the article on Ken Ham. In the new section, quote that newspaper article that mentions Ham's salary which then invokes the defensive response from Ken Ham. I'm fine with that. There is no reason to have this section duplicated in the AiG article since it is specifically about Ken Ham.

If you really want to find a place for the Jennifer Warner quote, I would suggest creating a new Wikipedia entry on the Creation Museum where you could delve into the controversy surrounding their acquisition of the land and the lawsuits that it involved. I would be against adding this to the AiG article because of the amount of space it would consume.

If you aren't willing to accept the compromise, then I am going to take our dispute to the Mediation Cabal. Hopefully you will respect the opinion of a mediator that is not involved with the AiG article. I am fairly new to Wikipedia so if there is a better way to get third parties involved, I am interested in hearing it. I think it's fair to say that we have exhausted an end to this dispute through discussions on the AiG talk page. DennisF 18:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I have reviewed your compromise, and these are my disagreements with what you have said/proposed:

* I have shown other sources critical of AiG/YEC ministry/Lisle's salary (above, not in article because I was trying to achieve balance). That there are other sources (not Wiki sources), I disagree that this is not a valid issue.

* It is not specifically about Ham (but included on his article, I assume, because of his defence of his own salary). The other VP's salaries were listed, the AiG USA ministry was accused (in other now sourced articles) implicitly (via Henke), against Ham (via Warner), against Lisle (via CSharpe), etc. It belongs on the AiG article more than the Ham article, IMO.

* Why should I 'create a new section' on the Ham article, where there is already an existing one that mentions that article? I'm confused by this request.

* That specific Warner quote does not pertain to the controversy in this context. Please explain how you think that it is not (another) verifiable source (it's cited) that pertains to this particular matter.

Mediation Cabal suggestion is inappropriately used here. That is a last resort (I understand, because you are new) when other avenues haven't been successful. Compromise is reached through discussion. That is what we are doing. agapetos_angel 00:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

One option is to place a request for comment. This may bring in some third parties. i would avoid mediation. My last experience involved someone coming and saying sort it out you have two days. It just caused friction. I don't think this dispute is beyond a compromise here. Possibly we do need to start making construvtive edits to try and narow in on a compromise. i think what you have written above makes sense. lets see what the others think. David D. (Talk) 18:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't my intentions to bring in mediators who would force their decision on anybody. I was just seeking an opinion from a party outside this dispute. It sounds like your idea of requesting a comment is more in line of what I was looking for.

I have made the edits that I am suggesting to both the AiG article and the Ken Ham article. I am interested in knowing what other think about what I have done including agapetos_angel.

Please note that the way the old section quoted Ken Ham defending his salary was wrong. The newspaper article does not contain Ken Ham's exact quotes and it is wrong for us to assume what he said and put it in quotes. Instead, my new section on Ken Ham's salary just quotes the newspaper article without attributing the words directly to Ham. DennisF 21:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

What edits have you made, Dennis? The section is removed, not changed. I have replaced the section, and invite you to make your suggested edits for review. It is not valid to remove the section when it is verifiable. Thank you. agapetos_angel 00:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

(reducing indent) Ashmoo proposed a compromise which I am comfortable with (with minor modification--the guidestar section is valid as it is linked from AiG website as 'financial information'). It shows no OR, and responds to the points with brevity. Can we reach a concensus? agapetos_angel 01:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Nice job with current revision, Ashmoo agapetos_angel 01:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I have made some more edits to reflect what I am willing to compromise.

The salary information does not belong in the criticism section. That implies that the salaries are too high and as we have already discussed, that is original research. To fix this, I have moved the salary information to the facts and figures where it can be presented in an unbiased way. The quote of Ken Ham defending his salary is fine with me, but it needs to be on Ken Ham page and not in that page's criticism section. I don't see any place for the Jennifer Warner quote. The only reason she was quoted by a newspaper was because she was a neighbor and they gave her space in an article about the creation museum. Please tell me why the Jennifer Warner quote deserves to be used in this article. Not every quote about AiG automatically deserves to be included in the article.

Personally, I believe AiG is responsible with the money donated to them and I have figures, rankings, and quotes from Charity Navigator to back me up. If you insist on a section that only reports data in a way that is unfavorable to AiG, then I am going to insist that I be allowed to post my sources that are favorable to AiG's financial handlings. I think the edit we have in place is a good compromise. Just put the financial info in the facts and figures section. Personally, I don't think it makes sense to have it in the article at all since salary information is probably better suited to articles about the individuals. I am willing to compromise and put them in facts and figures.

BTW, I don’t think we need to double reference Guidestar. Just report AiG's financial data and reference the Form 990 on Guidestar's website. There is no need to state that the information comes from Guidestar. If you think it lends credibility to state that AiG provides the reference to their tax data, I'm fine with that.

Hopefully we are close to a resolution in this dispute. DennisF 19:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Dennis, but I disagree. There is a definite (see sources) criticism/defence present and your current edit white washes that, putting AiG USA in the best possible light (POV), which is not the goal. Neither is the goal to put them in the worst possible light, so it is appropriate to report both criticism and complaint, and show the actual figures as Ashmoo and I have done. All the quotes from CN do is cloud that section and overinflate it to the complaint of others that it is too large, and the CN and NPT surveys were also removed in an equal manner (removing both POVs for NPOV balance). It does lend credibility to AiG that they link there as a financial reference, and it also shows that GS's reporting is not considered by them to be inaccurate. That is important, I think, for NPOV. Again, one may not like that there is criticism (born out by Ham's defence as much as the other sources), but to whitewash it is POV. Thanks agapetos_angel 01:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I've lost count of how many times I have asked. I'll ask again. Please tell me why you think Jennifer Warner is a reputable source?

Since you have insisted on putting the criticism back in, I am insisting on adding back Charity Navigator's highest ranking they gave AiG for administration expense efficiency. My addition is only one short sentence. Please don't whitewash it.

The rest of the section did grow with my edit. It is more accurate to call Jennifer Warner a plaintiff of a lawsuit against AiG. That is information that affects her credibility. Please don't whitewash that criticism.

Also, I had to rework Ham's defense. It is wrong to take a summary of Ham's statements made by a journalist and report it as if it were quoted by Ham. We don't know what Ham actually said to the reporter. I am not opposed to this section being in the article. DennisF 14:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is it POV pushing to include factual data and the ranking on an objective scale from a organization that has expert knowledge in evaluating charities?. Is your objection really based on your inability to get a reliable source that states Ken Ham is overpaid? If you want to post an edit that reflects your point of view, don't get upset when someone comes along and adds credible information that refutes it. The fact is, there is no data to show that AiG is "in it for the money". The ranking earned by AiG is very relevant in a section that criticizes them for what they pay their officers. DennisF 17:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

As I stated previously, the information that was originally in that section was NPOV as it represented both negative and positive information available from sources like CN. To remove one 'side' in favour of the other presents a POV (which you are pushing for the positive by retaining only positive information from CN, without adding back in the negative). Leaving the CN, NPT, and extra GS in adds undue weight to the criticism (i.e., represents OR), while as it currently stands without all the extras (positive or negative) reports that there is criticism (there are multiple critics, of which Warner is only one), reports Ham's defence, and gives some bare neutral facts. That presents a balanced NPOV. agapetos_angel 03:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Other quotes regarding salary

Above, I outlined three other quotes regarding salary, related (directly or indirectly) to this discussion. Are any of them to be included (I vote no, but wanted to make sure that we had a consensus) in the salary section? To recap:

• some anon on a web board [13]--which I think is unfair to use
• Henke's more general criticism ("Nevertheless, there is little doubt that many of these YEC ministries survive on the backs of many poor and elderly members that really can't afford to be throwing money at such a hopeless cause")[14] about 'YEC ministries'--not directly about AiG, so wishy-washy
• or Sharpe's criticism of AiG US speaker/scientist Jason Lisle ("Finally, a big mystery is what is the motivation for Jason Lisle’s involvement with creationism ... Somewhat less favorable explanations are that he is in it for the money ... Getting a research position at a university is difficult, and if you get one it is a lot of hard work with bad pay. Going around the country talking about creationism and writing glossy creationist books is easy and pleasant work, with easy money, and one is at the top of the field with no competition. One can bask in the glory of showing Christians that one is a “true” Christian who knows science" {emphasis mine}) [15]--most valid of these particular three, but Lisle is not on the 990 as one of the top paid

agapetos_angel 01:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see Personal websites as sources. DennisF 17:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW, AiG's form 990 lists highest paid employees who are not officers. According to that, Lisle must be making less than $60K since he didn't make the list. DennisF 19:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Another reason to leave that source out. Thanks for clarification. agapetos_angel 00:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Mock proposal for new section comparing Ken Ham to Hitler/Jim Jones

I would like to add the following section to the criticism section. I know many will resent having this added, but it doesn't violate any Wikipedia policies. I have a source that shows Jennifer Warner believes Ken Ham is like Adolf Hitler and Jim Jones. I also have a source showing AiG defending themselves from the charge, further proof that it is a valid criticism. I would like agapetos_angel's opinion on this proposed section.

--- Comparison of Ken Ham to Adolf Hitler and Jim Jones --- Lexington's Ace Weekly[16] and Cincinnati's CityBeat[17] reported that Jennifer Warner, a plaintiff in a lawsuit against AiG, admitted to comparing Ken Ham to Adolf Hitler and Jim Jones. Jim Jones was a cult leader that led 914 of his followers to commit suicide.[18]

Ken Ham denies this and has claimed that this comparison also appeared in a local paper and a woman compared him to "Jim Jones, coming to get our kids!" during a public hearing at a zoning meeting for the creation museum.[19] AiG defended themselves from Jennifer Warner's comparison and other claimed false allegations by filing a countersuit against her.[20]

(I really don't want to add this, I just want to make a mockery of using Jennifer Warner as a reputable source) ---unsigned by User:Dennis_Fuller---

'Mockery' (false proposals) is a waste of editors time. Please do not do this again. agapetos_angel 16:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I changed the title of this talk section so that nobody will think this is a real proposal.

Are Jennifer Warner's statements based on real knowledge of AiG or is she just an upset neighbor throwing out derogatory statements? Can you answer this one question? DennisF 17:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

(posted after edit clash with Dennis) It may be mockery but it is a useful analogy. I have never been comfortable with this section on Ham's salary. In fact i am surprised you are comfortable with it too. Why do you think it is worth addressing? i know it is verfiable but does that make it worthy of inclusion? Personally I think this is a storm in a tea cup and should only be on this page if indeed Ham is found to be guilty as charged. So far all i see are assertions from a NIMBY type antagonist. Verifiable source, yes; reputable source, no. David D. (Talk) 17:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

No, David, it is a waste of someone's time to make proposals of content Dennis never intended to insert. If you have an analogy or a complaint, Dennis, please do not hide it in a proposal that appears to be valid, only to say that you were just kidding at the end. Thank you.

As for your question, her right to judge (like CSharpe's to judge Lisle, or Dr Henke's right to judge ministries) may be able to be shown as lacking objectivity (by the addition of the nature of the dispute with AiG--the dismissed suit/countersuit). However, it cannot be whitewashed just because you personally do not agree with her assessment. All three of those critics, Warner/Sharpe/Henke could be fruitcakes who are not in a position to make the judgments they are making. However, that is for the reader to determine, not the editor to assert. Your argument ignores that Ham defended his salary and that the Warner quote (one of three that would be considered acceptable by wikipedia standards of coming from a reputable source; the webboard one is not) is secondary support to the critics he mentions/implies by the defence.

I would request that you not whitewash the article, necessitating rollback. If you have issue, then the RfC was the appropriate avenue. The dispute tag is already in place, which is sufficient to show that there is disagreement on the content.

re: the quote by Ham about his salary. It is not well worded to quote with the 'he said' 'he said' 'Ham said'. Putting there that the editor wrote what Ham said is sufficient; the section does not have to be quoted word for word and the bracket usage indicates that the words inserted make the sentence read with fluidity, rather than the actual words. Ham said it, the journalist reported it. Both are included in the section.

Lastly, where you insist on the CN inclusion: it's removal was to shorten the lengthy section that someone complained was too long and too overly emphasised. If you place the CN information in, ALL the CN information that was there before would need to be included for a balanced NPOV. It's not appropriate to show the positive while eliminating the negative from the same source. Either both neg and pos go, or both stay. For brevity, and in an effort to lessen the emphasis, I say both should be out.

I have changed the header because the length of it leaves far too little room for comment in the edit summary. Thanks agapetos_angel 00:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Looking for outside input on salary criticism

This section was created in response to an invitation made on the requests for comment page. It is meant to provide a summary of the dispute as it currently stands.

We are looking for opinions from outside parties who have no opinion on the creationist organization Answers In Genesis (AiG). We have an editor who insists on including a section criticizing the salary of the CEO. This organization had over $10 million in revenue in 2004 and CEO was compensated $185K for that year.[21] Charity Navigator, a website that evaluates non-profit charities, has given AiG favorable ratings and has statistics showing CEO salary is comparable to other charities of similar size. Several editors are calling the salary criticism [no_original_research|Original Research] since there are no sources directly criticizing the CEO's compensation. Editor of criticism section claims two indirect sources justify inclusion in article.

The two sources the editor is claiming are:

• A neighbor who was involved with AiG in a lawsuit over a land acquisition near her residence. Neighbor has admittedly compared CEO to Adolph Hitler and Jim Jones and was quoted in a newspaper article over the zoning dispute as saying AiG was "all about making money". Editor believes this accusation opens the door for salary criticisms despite the fact that the context has nothing to do with salaries.[22]

• In an interview with AiG CEO, a report mentioned CEO's salary in passing which invoked a defensive reply from CEO.[23] Editor claims that criticism of his salary therefore must exist and CEO was making an open response to criticism he had received in the past.

DennisF 18:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

To add to the summary:

There are 4 3 reputable sources that support inclusion. Impartiality of the subject of the source does not equal lack of reputability of the source. Impartiality should be shown, not the criticism whitewashed to create a hagiography.

There are two avenues of thought in this debate:

• Increase the length to include viewpoints from other sources
  • PRO of this approach
    • more accurate representation
  • CON
    • more emphasis
• Maintain current brevity
  • PRO
    • Keeps appropriate emphasis
    • Keeps the article more within wikiguidelines for size
  • CON
    • Does not represent every viewpoint on the subject
      • NB: brevity leaves out both additional negative as well as additional positive source material.

Attempted resolve of complaint of OR was the removal of all material from CharityNavigator, NonProfit Times, and all but the 990 information from Guidestar. Leaving the 990 information is appropriate because it does not speak to a POV, but only reports the figures without prejudice, allowing the reader to draw their own conclusions. Dennis would have that information restored to the point of edit war, replacing the OR into the article, as well as the POV-positive. agapetos_angel 01:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

RfC

The section begins with a quote from the plaintiff of a lawsuit whose case was dismissed in court. This violates WP:NPOV. Normally my recommendation would be to open with a neutral description of the controversy and give space to both sides. Instead I've added a citation flag to the section and I recommend removing this section from the article.

In the interest of Wikipedia:Assume good faith I'll assume this arose as an honest mistake. A section entitled "Criticism of salary" must be about just that. The first paragraph is misleading. It cites two articles about a Kentucky construction project, neither of which mention the director's salary. The quote appears out of context. The final paragraph gives the impression that the Kentucky Post published an exposé about this organization's finances. Actually that article focuses on the same construction project with only a brief and neutral discussion of the director's salary near the end. I agree the Wikipedia section violates WP:NOR.

The whole structure leads a reasonable reader to conclude that the CEO's compensation is a subject of public controversy. The actual subject of public controversy is a development plan. A section about the development plan could be encyclopedic. This section is not. Durova 07:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Durova, please note that the Warner quote is one of three quotes from reputable sources. Warner criticises AiG USA, Dr. Sharpe criticises Dr Lisle of AiG USA, and Dr Henke's criticism is a more generalized version. It would, IMO, be POV to include three negatives. Could you please comment on that point?

Would "In it for the money?" be a more appropriate title then? This is the phrasing common to the three critics, although seen to be too POV for the article as a header.

Lastly, as the editor who requested comment has left Wikipedia (see below) does this close the RfC request? Thanks agapetos_angel 08:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Do we know why Warners case was dismissed from court? This seems to back up that she did not have a leg to stand on and was all hot air. This all seems very tabloid. David D. (Talk) 08:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "In it for the money" is too POV for a section header. The sources in this section lend themselves to a discussion of land use and rural development. They might be subsidiary references to a section about finance. That topic would have to build around at least one published reference whose primary focus is financial. Regarding the final question, that editor raised a legitimate concern. I hope the active editors accept constructive criticism offered in good spirit. Regards, Durova 08:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW if this article quotes Warner and mentions her lawsuit it should also mention AfG's countersuit against her for libel and defamation. That was ongoing when these news articles were published. It's probably been resolved by now and the resolution is worth researching. The current version wouldn't look good if AfG won that case. Durova 08:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yup. Comments are always good :) I've changed to just having it under the general criticism header. I've also added the other two complaints, which have nothing to do with land, etc. I didn't look too deeply into Warner, but the suit/countersuit was dismissed by both parties, so I think that is a secondary concern. That there are two PhDs with similar complaints is something to look at. NPOV is expressed, I believe by showing only one source, but will compromise with all three being needed to address that there is criticism.agapetos_angel 08:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, does the main topic of a newspaper article (or journal paper) negate a quote or comment made within that is not an expression of the main topic? agapetos_angel 08:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't make the subsidiary quote unallowable, but it does require the editor to introduce the quote in context and using neutral terms, such as: "In an article about a planned development project, the Kentucky Post notes that the director's annual salary is X dollars per year..." The more serious problem I commented on was that an entire subheading had been constructed around a couple of short paragraphs near the end of a single newspaper article. Durova 01:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I agreed with you that the sub-header was misleading, and removed it, but an alternative didn't come to mind so I left that off entirely and let it just naturally flow under the header. I'll attempt a rewrite on the bit about Warner. What do you think about the other two sources of criticism? I think it add unnecessary weight to 'negative', making it no longer NPOV, but as I said, I will concede if it is necessary to show it's not one isolated criticism. agapetos_angel 01:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The current version looks much better. It still comes across as heavily critical of AfG. That's all right if that's the way the press has covered the issue. However, in this type of situation there is usually some fundamentalist Christian publication that comes to the organization's defense. That would be a good addition here. Also, the articles about the Kentucky development project focused on local concerns about growth and land use. The stories covered at least one local who agreed with the AfG's theology but opposed the development project over these issues. That sort of quote would add more depth to the article. Best wishes, Durova 07:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree it come across critical, but don't see a way around addressing a criticism as a whole, showing 'no OR', and balancing it fully so that it doesn't look critical (criticism being critical). I will look to see if there is more balance, but each additional bit seems to rabbit-multiply, until the section is blown out of proportion to one POV or another. Thanks for your input. It was appreciated ++ agapetos_angel 08:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Durova, Thank you for stopping by and offering your time to help us find a compromise with this dispute. I apologize for my absence. This dispute has left me very frustrated with Wikipedia as a whole. I needed a little time to cool off. It appears that Agapetos angel (AA) respects your opinion and I am hoping that you can work with us to settle our differences. I apologize for the length of this post but I think it addresses a lot of important comments.

I believe AiG is a financial responsible organization and CEO Ken Ham is fairly compensated. Charity Navigator (CN) is a website that collects data from IRS form 990's and provides objective ratings on charities operations. CN gives the best managed charities 4 starts. CN doesn't give partial-star rankings, but if they did, AiG would be receiving 3.75 stars.[24] Much of the criticism that AA is trying to inject involves her belief that AiG's top officers are overpaid. The data and rankings provided by CN refute this. On CN's website they advise that "Among the charities we've evaluated, the average CEO salary is $144,804. Before you make any judgments about salaries higher or lower than this average, we encourage you to look at CEO pay as a percentage of total expenses". Indeed, if we do look at CEO Ken Ham's salary as a percentage of total expenses, we see that it amounts to 2.23%. This is nearly half the average of 4.34% for religious based charities and still less than the average of 3.4% for all charities regardless of category.[25] Furthermore, AiG's administration costs amounted to 12.2% of total expenses. On CN's ranking for admin costs from 1 (worst) to 10 (best)[26], AiG earned a solid 10. This hard data clearly refutes anything that AA wants to say about AiG staff being overpaid. She will try to point out that Ken Ham is paid more than the average CEO, but that is not fair as that compares AiG's multimillion dollar budget to mom-and-pop charities. Obviously, larger charities require more responsibility and more talent, thus greater compensation. That' why even CN advises looking at the sizes of the charities and how much that charity is accomplishing before making rash judgments. As you can see from the article edit history, I have tried to include this information in the article to provide balance to the baseless/accusational sources from AA, but she reverts it every single time for one excuse or another. One time, my positive balance amounted to one short sentence yet she quickly removes it with disregard to any kind of community consensus.

Durova, you have correctly pointed out that AA's edits are clearly OR. There is a clear community consensus that this is OR and AA has disregarded that. Not only are AA's edits OR, they violate Wikipedia policy regarding the types of sources that we can use. Wikipedia policy states "Evaluate the reliability of online sources just as you would print or other more traditional sources. Neither online nor print sources deserve an automatic assumption of reliability by virtue of the medium they are printed in. All reports must be evaluated according to the processes and people that created them."[27] Indeed, AA seems to think that just because she can find a quote somewhere on the internet, that it deserves being mentioned. It is against the policy to use personal websites as sources in matters like this. For that reason, the CSharp source needs to be removed. Warner's quote needs to be removed because she is a partisan. She was involved with an ugly lawsuit with AiG and her source provides nothing more than a verbal attack, she provides no evidence whatsoever to support her accusation. The Dr. Henke article was posted on the "No Answers In Genesis" website, a partisan group that exists solely for opposing AiG's ministry. All of these violate Wikipedia policy for reliable sources. If AA can find a source that has evidence of AiG being motivated by money, then I will support her in appropriately including it in the article. I believe partisans deserve mention in Wikipedia articles, but they shouldn't be used as primary sources when POV's are being injected into the article.

I have one additional complaint about AA's edits. It's minor but must be addressed and it is clearly dishonest to ignore it. The Kentucky Post article does not contain any direct quotes of Ken Ham defending his salary. The reporter has clearly summarized what Ham as said and rightfully did not place it inside quote marks. AA has taken what was written in the Kentucky Post article, put it in quotes, replaced all the "he said"s with "I"s or "me"s and is giving the appearance of an exact quote from Ham. This is wrong and must be corrected. I have attempted to fix this and have provided an explanation for my change, but AA reverted this like almost everything I edit in this section.

Here is the compromise I am willing to make. The only sources that AA provides that meets Wikipedia's policy of source reliability are the Kentucky Post article with Ham defending his salary and the list of salaries that was extracted from AiG's form 990. I would like to see all of AA's edit regarding salary criticisms of AiG removed from the AiG article and Ken Ham article (they appear there in duplicate form). The Ken Ham article should contain a reference to the Kentucky Post article where the reporter mentions Ham's salary and Ham provides a defense. The data from form 990 regarding officers compensation can appear on the AiG article under the section "Facts and figures". Personally, I don't think this information is valuable or warrant inclusion in the article, but I am willing to concede on this and allow AA to include a reference to how much AiG staff is paid. If AA is unwilling to compromise and remove the unreliable sources that amount to nothing more than smearing of AiG, then I will insist that I be allowed to include the factual and objective rankings provided by CN to provide balance. I don't think there is room in the article on AiG to devote a lot of time to the legal battles that AiG had in acquiring the land for the creation museum. A few statements is ok, but if AA wants to devote a lot of time going into the lawsuit between Warner and AiG, then I believe another article should be devoted to the AiG Creation Museum.

Please, AA and Durova, I want to work this dispute out. If I am wrong for calling AA's sources unreliable, then let's talk about. If we all agree that AA's sources are unreliable, then let them be removed. DennisF 15:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your confidence in me. Unfortunately my time has its limits. I've already contributed more here than I intended. Wikipedia policies focus on acceptable source material and technical citation format. The more subtle but equally important matters of quoting sources in context and citing relevant passages deserve more attention. Since Wikipedia guidelines have overlooked this matter, I urge the people who have experience in the subject to assume good faith and set aside POV to improve the research. This doesn't mean spending days or weeks hunting for documentation of every assertion made by other editors. It does mean pointing out where citation is needed, commenting when citations fail to meet acceptable standards, and advising other contributors on how to improve their citations. Durova 17:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Durova, I am not trying to draw you further into our dispute, but would you be willing to make a comment about whether AA's sources meet Wikipedia's guidelines on reliability for online sources? Wikipedia has standards on what are acceptable sources and I think it can be clearly shown that AA's three sources fail to meet these. The CSharp source is a personal website and both Jennifer Warner and the "No Answers in Genesis" organization are clearly partisans that have an axe to grind against AiG. Thank you for your time. DennisF 17:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You're mostly right. The two websites could be listed in the "External links" section at the end of the page. If some journalist quotes these webmasters in an encyclopedic news source then the quotes would be appropriate in the article. Jennifer Warner's quote is appropriate if it's used in context because the original statement was published in a newspaper. Durova 22:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

(reducing indent) Dennis, the points you make have been previously addressed, and therefore, I am summing up the reply rather than readdressing them again. Firstly, adding the extra material from CN, NPT, etc. is OR, not source gathering. It's 'stacking the deck' to include half the information (positive) rather than representing, as shown previously, that the information also has negative implications (quick example, the CN rating without pointing out that CEO salary is not included in that rating). Adding both pos and neg points, to maintain NPOV, adds undue weight to the section, so it is better that it is left off entirely. Secondly, saying 'editor reported' is sufficient. It reads properly to the average reader, and the source is supplied. Thirdly, it is not up to me to show 'a source that has evidence of AiG being motivated by money' because this is a section about criticism, not evidence (you are mistaking the fact that someone said something for the fact that what they said is true). Lastly, "I believe AiG is a financial responsible organization and CEO Ken Ham is fairly compensated" is unfortunately the problem here. While everyone has a POV on one thing or another, it is important to maintain impartiality in editing. This obvious postive-POV is causing a slant toward extreme 'positive' in the edits you've made. Fair representation of the criticism by three sources is being attempted, with hard facts being offered for the reader to make the judgment one way or the other. It is up to us to report, not refute. THAT would be OR. agapetos_angel 05:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

That's true too. To rephrase a thought from my original RfC post, the problem with citing the Kentucky Post about Ken Ham's salary is that it introduces a Catch-22: in order to maintain NPOV, the editors have to supply supporting evidence for both sides. The space required to do so violates the "undue weight" section of NPOV policy and possibly WP:NOR. If other mainstream news sources have alleged unfair executive compensation then the subject becomes fair game. One or two paragraphs deep in a long article do not constitute a controversy. Durova 06:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem I see with the Catch-22, as you aptly phrased it, is that there are three sources listed that allege 'in it for the money'. I have agreed that a title/subtile like that is not appropriate. However, I think it is also not appropriate to whitewash that there is that criticism. The criticism? They are 'in it for the money' (three sources). The NPOV information about AiG USA's compensations? Neutral information from Guidestar-IRS 990. The balance for NPOV? Ham's defence as reported by the Kentucky Post. The Kentucky Post article balances the criticism by reporting what the CEO of AiG USA states about compensation (i.e., against critics). I think leaving the KYPost ref OUT makes the section POV, not necessitates adding more supporting evidence. agapetos_angel 06:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Another quick clarification. CSharpe.com is a commercial website, not a personal one. agapetos_angel 06:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

CSharp.com is a personal website. Christopher Sharp personally wrote the content on that website and if you do a WHOIS on that domain name, you will see that it was registered by him.[28] That qualities it as a personal website regardless of the fact that is was registered with a dot com extension. DennisF 14:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but the fact that he registered it and wrote content on it does not dispute that it is indeed a commercial website. Look at the content, rather than the registration (the link you supplied is invalid--this will get you there)agapetos_angel 00:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

AA, I disagree that including data and rankings from CN is OR. CN had already collected the data and has come up with objective ratings that they apply fairly to all charities. To report on the analysis CN has done is not OR. I just don't understand this. It's ok for you to post the opinions of partisans that have an axe to grind against AiG, but it's wrong for me to post favorable ratings given to AiG from an expert source that objectively analyzes factual data.

I would like for you to tell me if you agree with Wikipedia's guideline for using reliable sources (WP:RS). We need to have a discussion about the reliability of your sources but I first want to make sure that you agree with the guideline as it is written. I agree with it and will make my best effort to follow it. What about you? DennisF 14:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't understand, but I've made several efforts to explain the point. Including the data you want to include represents ONLY the positive aspects of CN's reporting and it is, therefore, POV to post just those positively weighted bits. Furthermore, as I pointed out, to bring in the information you are suggesting necessitates bringing in the other information that was originally submitted from the same (or similar) sources. This will unneccessarily inflate the section to undue weight. Please see above for reasons why (so I don't repeat myself). agapetos_angel 00:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I see we've come full circle. There's a difference between claims that a nonprofit organization as a whole is "in it for the money" and a specific allegation against the CEO's salary. Three news sources have addressed the former, largely in reference to a Kentucky development project. It would be appropriate for Wikipedia to address that issue in the context in which it was raised. This does not open the door to every tangential subject some editor chooses to infer. Durova 17:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

(inserted comment) I agree. This is the reason that the header change away from CEO salary is appropriate. No, the three are not largely about the Kentucky development project. I think that is one confusion here. The three are about multiple issues. Warner's quote, yes, is included in an article about the developement project. It is not, I feel however, out of context to show that there is criticism that they are 'in it for the money'. If you feel that a rewrite should be done to show the context in which each was said, then I would appreciate an example. But I disagree that the subject is tangential inference. agapetos_angel 00:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Durova, I have no problems with including Warner's quote as long as it's provided in its proper context as you have mentioned (a section long enough to properly cover this topic should probably be placed in another article). The problem I have with Warner's quote is that it is placed in the context of AiG's salaries/financial motives and she is not a reliable source in this matter. You have already voiced your concern over this, but I still haven’t seen AA make an edit that addresses this concern. Sure, the section titled "salaries" was taken away but Warner's quote still appears right between paragraphs that deal with financially motivated accusations and AiG 990 salary data. I would prefer that AA make the necessary edits since my attempts to fix things just get reverted and labelled as vandalism.

I would like to see the Form 990 data remove from the criticism section and placed in the "facts and figures" section since there are no sources that are critical of these officer's pay (all of AA's sources are critical of the motives, not the salary amount). I think the Kentucky Post interview with Ham where he defends his salary is most appropriately placed in the Ken Ham article. Everything else remaining are clearly accusations made by partisans and that is a violation of the Wikipedia guideline for reliable sources WP:RS and should therefore be removed (with the exception of Warner which can be used in the proper place as discussed). DennisF 18:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I have made edits addressing Durova's concerns already. That you may not agree with them is another matter. Please don't misrepresent the matter. I am going to take a break from this for bit to reflect and research. agapetos_angel 00:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Quick source I found while looking for something else:

• "Ken Ham is interviewed, saying that evolution is an evil to be fought, and pointing out the conflicts between the Bible and secular ‘science’ that deals with origins. Then the program shows snippets from a free seminar he gave, but deceitfully shows money changing hands at the same time as they show people entering the auditorium. But the money was either for books, videos etc., or for another seminar (most AiG meetings are free). The program presumably wished to present AiG as in it for the money." (emphasis mine)

This is another response to what is obviously not an isolated criticism that is being made, and another reason that the criticism should not be whitewashed. agapetos_angel 01:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

And another:

• "Archbishop Hollingworth is quoted as saying ‘Creationists have a lot of money and they are very smart.’ Having worked full-time for Answers in Genesis for the past ten years, I have yet to see much of this money. Having come from the business world, I am aware of the wages and conditions which exist there. Many people in AiG are working for a third (or less) of what they would receive in secular jobs. Further, as we travel throughout Australia and the world doing our talks we are mostly billeted with supporters, gladly accepting whatever (free) accommodation is available. Conversely, evolutionists seem to have access to limitless funds, ultimately coerced from taxpayers, to promulgate their religion."

Does this accurately illustrate that this criticism has been made and addressed more than once? agapetos_angel 01:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

That's an eloquent quote. Work that together with the existing text and I think the main dilemma will be solved. May I say also, it's been a pleasure coming to this RfC? I'd like to applaud the editors here for courtesy and fair mindedness. You're an example to others. Regards, Durova 04:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

AA, I appreciate your fairness in presenting those sources. It still doesn't change my opinion that those making judgments about AiG's motives are unreliable sources. I can accept using these unreliable sources as long as they are accurately portrayed as people who oppose AiG's ministry for one reason or another (that is, accurately portrayed as the partisan's they are). I think we are close to a resolution. AA, let me take your proposal for the new section and make some small changes to it. I really like your new wording that starts off addressing the criticisms as speculation instead of just diving into a quote by my friend Jennifer Warner.

Durova, thanks for taking your time to come here and comment on a topic that is probably of no interest to you. As a way of saying thanks, I will try to find another article in need of an RfC and offer my input. DennisF 14:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a great way to give back. May I impose on you? There's a peer review request for an article I've been working on. It recently gained good article status and I'm working toward getting it featured. Please take a moment and share ideas for improving it. Wikipedia:Peer review/Joan of Arc/archive2 Durova 06:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll come by and comment and soon as AA and I are done collaborating the new section. My time is limited, I am sure you understand. DennisF 14:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't for me.

It was fun (but more frustrating) while it lasted but I am getting out of the salary dispute and Wikipedia editing all together. I don't have the patience to deal with editors like Agapetos angel who don't understand why it is wrong to doctor up a statement made by a reporter to make it appear as an actual quote from Ken Ham. Her response in the section "Looking for outside input on salary criticism" shows how truely clueless she is to the objections I've raised about the reliability of Warner as a source and the over OR-ness of the salary section.

For the other editors who I could actually carry a discussion with and receive coherent replies from, it was nice working with you.

I'm not looking for sympathy, just letting the other editors know why I am disappearing (and venting my frustration before I quit). DennisF 13:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see you leave rather than trying to work things out. It's not doctoring a statement when the reporter stated Ham said something (three times!), to show it as what Ham said (with the caveat that it is 'according to X reporter') rather than including the exact quote from the newspaper which included all three variations of 'he said'--it read odd that way. As for your vent of frustration? I give it a 5.9. It had a good tune, but I couldn't dance to it. :) agapetos_angel 01:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Continuing Criticism discussion

Since Dennis seems to dispute the Warner quote so heavily, would it perhaps be more appropriate to add the following after Warner's quote (showing other critics might illustrate it's not an isolated complaint):

• Similar complaints[29][30] were echoed by Dr Christopher Sharpe [31] on his 'domain name for commercial uses' CSharpe [32], and by Dr Kevin Henke [33] on John Stear's website NAiG [34].

I still vote 'no' because this pads heavily on "negative", rather than meeting NPOV, IMO. However, I'm willing to add that if the anti-Warner view is still popular. Warner expressed best the complaint, IMO, that several people have expressed in other versions. agapetos_angel 03:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Based on the RfC results, I've added these two sources, while expressing the objection that this now moves it to the POV heavily negative. agapetos_angel 08:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Working copy of Financial motivations

Complaints of financially-driven agendas have been published with regard to the Creation museum development project. Lexington's Ace Weekly[35] and Cincinnati's CityBeat[36] quoted Jennifer Warner, a plaintiff in the dismissed lawsuit/countersuit with AiG (USA), saying, "It's all about making money. They're masquerading behind this Creation museum because they can make more money when they claim religious discrimination." Similar points have also been addressed by Kevin Henke [37] who made a generalised complaint about YEC ministries: "Nevertheless, there is little doubt that many of these YEC ministries survive on the backs of many poor and elderly members that really can't afford to be throwing money at such a hopeless cause".[38]

Subseqent articles by the Kentucky Post staff reporter, Kevin Eigelbach, about Answers in Genesis' (USA) message, reported Ham's salary for 2001 and Ham's defense of that salary amount: People who think that's a lot of money probably don't know the sacrifices [I] made to get the ministry started. [I] had no salary in the first years of the ministry and bought equipment for it with [my] teacher's retirement pay.[39]

According to Guidestar, the United States branch of AiG had revenue exceeding $10 million[40] in 2004. In that year, Ken Ham was compensated $185,572. Other high ranking officials were compensated $115,621 (Dale Mason), $92,352 (Carl Kerby), $91,316 (Mike Zovath), $89,133 (Mark Looy) and $86,068 (Kathy Ellis).

This is an effort to address everyones concerns. Possibly we can edit on the talk page for a while and try and hammer out some prose that work for all. David D. (Talk) 21:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Adding RfC suggestions

Suggestion that includes RfC remarks:

Financial motivations

AiG has weathered other criticisms, including speculations about financial motivations and accusations of financially-driven agendas. In an article about a ministry visit by AiG's Dr Jason Lisle, Dr Christopher Sharpe [41] (on his 'domain name for commercial uses', CSharpe) speculated on Dr Lisle's 'motivation for ... involvement with creationism' by saying, "Somewhat less favorable explanations are that he is in it for the money and/or the pride." [42] On John Stear's website, No Answers in Genesis, in an article [43] that touched on many different topics regarding Creation Science, Dr Kevin Henke [44] made a more generalised complaint against YEC ministries, "Nevertheless, there is little doubt that many of these YEC ministries survive on the backs of many poor and elderly members that really can't afford to be throwing money at such a hopeless cause".

Also, in similar articles about the Creation museum development project, Lexington's Ace Weekly[45] and Cincinnati's CityBeat[46] quoted Jennifer Warner, a plaintiff in the dismissed lawsuit/countersuit with AiG (USA), saying, "It's all about making money. They're masquerading behind this Creation museum because they can make more money when they claim religious discrimination."

The AiG website refers visitors who are interested in AiG-USA public information to Guidestar[47]. Guidestar reported that the United States branch of AiG had revenue exceeding $10 million[48] in 2004. In that year, Ken Ham was compensated $185,572. Other high ranking officials were compensated $115,621 (Dale Mason), $92,352 (Carl Kerby), $91,316 (Mike Zovath), $89,133 (Mark Looy) and $86,068 (Kathy Ellis). Dr Lisle was not listed, according to the 990 (page 7), as one of the 'employee[s] paid more than $50,000'. [49]

Kevin Eigelbach, staff reporter for the Kentucky Post, in an article about Answers in Genesis' (USA) message, reported Ham's salary for 2001 and Ham's defense of that salary amount: People who think that's a lot of money probably don't know the sacrifices [I] made to get the ministry started. [I] had no salary in the first years of the ministry and bought equipment for it with [my] teacher's retirement pay.[50]

AiG's Warwick Armstrong, in a 2001 article discussing media coverage of an AiG Supercamp/Conference in Sydney[51], responded directly against criticism of this nature:

Having worked full-time for Answers in Genesis for the past ten years, I have yet to see much of this money. Having come from the business world, I am aware of the wages and conditions which exist there. Many people in AiG are working for a third (or less) of what they would receive in secular jobs. Further, as we travel throughout Australia and the world doing our talks we are mostly billeted with supporters, gladly accepting whatever (free) accommodation is available. Conversely, evolutionists seem to have access to limitless funds, ultimately coerced from taxpayers, to promulgate their religion."

agapetos_angel 09:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the quote from the Australian Skeptics. Their quote, while about money, didn't fit in with the rest of the section about AiG being "in it for the money".

I also removed the list of names and salaries of AiG staffers. Simply listing a range of top earners should be enough. Anybody really interested in that kind of detail can easily extract it from the source provided.

Since the Kentucky Post article brought criticisms of Ham's salary into the section, I think it is therefore appropriate to bring in a short spiel about the data on Charity Navigator.

I don't want my changes to be perceived as an edit war. AA has chosen to make suggested edits in the article instead of the talk page, so I am doing the same. DennisF 18:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, Dennis, I must protest that adding only half the information from CN is POV. Therefore, it must all be added (giving undue weight) or all omitted (retaining NPOV). Some of your rewording is fine, and in some cases more accurate, but you again put in the suit with Warner rather than the fact that it was a lawsuit/countersuit. "in response to Archbishop Hollingworth's comment that 'Creationists have a lot of money and they are very smart', said:" however, does not work because you attribute the comment to Hollingworth as a direct quote, rather than as Armstrong stated is quoted as saying. I could not find that quote made directly by Peter Hollingworth, and as such, worded it appropriately to reflect that, as well as meeting the need for showing that Armstrong's statement was in an article about ... I don't understand why you are insisting on the context for the points that are 'negative', while removing the context for the points that are 'positive'. I am removing that section for the moment, so that we can get this hammered out and prevent any (mis)perception of an edit war.

Section by section (AA)

(AA) AiG has weathered other criticisms, including speculations about financial motivations and accusations of financially-driven agendas.

(DF) Critics have made speculations about financial motivations and accusations of financially-driven agendas.

I think using ‘Critics’ is inserting an unnecessary weasel word, but as it is supported in the following text (rather than standing alone). My point was to insert a phrase that made the reading flow from the previous criticism to this one (and to add more positive POV balance for NPOV-‘weathered’). I’m okay with this change, but still submit that my version reads better. agapetos_angel 03:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

(AA) In an article about a ministry visit by AiG's Dr Jason Lisle, Dr Christopher Sharpe [52] (on his 'domain name for commercial uses', CSharpe) speculated on Dr Lisle's 'motivation for ... involvement with creationism' by saying, "Somewhat less favorable explanations are that he is in it for the money and/or the pride." [53]

(DF) Dr Christopher Sharpe[54], in an article critical of young earth creationism and AiG's Dr. Jason Lisle, speculated on the reasoning for Lisle's involvement with AiG given his academic credentials saying: … he is in it for the money … Getting a research position at a university is difficult, and if you get one it is a lot of hard work with bad pay. Going around the country talking about creationism and writing glossy creationist books is easy and pleasant work, with easy money, and one is at the top of the field with no competition.[55]

Dennis, while I’ll support your rewrite here, I am confused. I thought your ‘goal’ (for lack of a better word) was to add more positive reflections. Why add more negative commentary from Sharp (I misspelled Sharp’s name—no E at the end)? This moves this statement from NPOV, to negPOV, I think. My version reported the direct criticism, without the additional commentary by Sharp. ‘…in an article critical of young earth creationism and AiG's Dr. Jason Lisle, speculated on …’ is good. Let’s keep that. agapetos_angel 03:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

(AA) On John Stear's website, No Answers in Genesis, in an article [56] that touched on many different topics regarding Creation Science, Dr Kevin Henke [57] made a more generalised complaint against YEC ministries, "Nevertheless, there is little doubt that many of these YEC ministries survive on the backs of many poor and elderly members that really can't afford to be throwing money at such a hopeless cause".

(DF) removed

Having already mentioned my objection to it’s use, I only included this because complaints necessitated showing the criticism was reflected in multiple sources (Warner, Sharp, Henke, indirectly responded to by Ham, indirectly responded to by Armstrong, indirectly responded to by Sarfati, not to mention that I didn’t even include the Plimer fiasco the AiG Australia fought {and won} against) . Therefore, with the understanding that its removal is not to be used as an excuse to whitewash the complaint, I agree—it’s gone.

(AA)Also, in similar articles about the Creation museum development project, Lexington's Ace Weekly[58] and Cincinnati's CityBeat[59] quoted Jennifer Warner, a plaintiff in the dismissed lawsuit/countersuit with AiG (USA), saying, "It's all about making money. They're masquerading behind this Creation museum because they can make more money when they claim religious discrimination."

(DF) Jennifer Warner, a plaintiff in a lawsuit against AiG attempting to block their land acquisition near her home for the creation museum, was quoted by Lexington's Ace Weekly[60] and Cincinnati's CityBeat[61] saying, "It's all about making money. They're masquerading behind this Creation museum because they can make more money when they claim religious discrimination. They've worked all the Baptist churches."

I must insist that the one-sided addressing of the lawsuit be removed or NPOVed. It was a lawsuit/countersuit. BOTH sides sued, and the case was dismissed. It is poisoning the well to only mention one side. I’m not saying it couldn’t stand a rewrite from my wording, but ‘Creation museum development project’ is sufficient to address both the suit and the primary substance of the article. Again, extreme confusion, based on your arguments, over why you added more ‘negative’ POV against AiG with addition of the unrelated complaint ‘They've worked all the Baptist churches’. agapetos_angel 03:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

(AA) The AiG website refers visitors who are interested in AiG-USA public information to Guidestar[62]. Guidestar reported that the United States branch of AiG had revenue exceeding $10 million[63] in 2004. In that year, Ken Ham was compensated $185,572. Other high ranking officials were compensated $115,621 (Dale Mason), $92,352 (Carl Kerby), $91,316 (Mike Zovath), $89,133 (Mark Looy) and $86,068 (Kathy Ellis). Dr Lisle was not listed, according to the 990 (page 7), as one of the 'employee[s] paid more than $50,000'. [64]

(DF) According to IRS tax form 990 filed by AiG for year 2004 and made available online by Guidestar, Ken Ham was compensated $185,572.[65] According to Charity Navigator, an organization dedicated to guiding donors of non-profit charities which awarded AiG three out of four stars, this is above the national average of $97,357 for CEO's of religious based charities. When CEO compensations are compared as a percentage of total expenses, Ham's compensation of 2.23% is less than the national average of 4.34% for religious charities. Form 990 also shows some of the highest paid AiG staffers being compensated between $115,621 and $86,068 in 2004.

” According to IRS tax form 990 filed by AiG for year 2004 and made available online by Guidestar,’ is well worded, but removes that AiG themselves link to it as representative of their public information. I’m okay with that, though. I am NOT okay with removing “Guidestar reported that the United States branch of AiG had revenue exceeding $10 million in 2004’, especially in light that this complaint is about finances. Reporting revenue show neutral figures so that readers can draw their own conclusions based on real evidence. Same with figures of compensation. CN commentary needs to be removed, or BOTH negative and positive (as previously addressed) has to be shown for NPOV.

Suggest following:

*According to IRS tax form 990 filed by the United States branch of AiG for year 2004, made available online by Guidestar, total revenue was $10,423,222.00 and total expenses was $8,320,926 for that office. Also shown on the Form 990 for 2004 are the compensations for AiG staffers, including CEO Ken Ham ($185,572) and other high ranking officials between $115,621 and $86,068. Dr Lisle was not listed as one of the 'employee[s] paid more than $50,000'.

This gives hard facts, including the absense of Dr Lisle’s name on the list (positive balance to Sharp quote for NPOV). agapetos_angel 03:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

(AA) Kevin Eigelbach, staff reporter for the Kentucky Post, in an article about Answers in Genesis' (USA) message, reported Ham's salary for 2001 and Ham's defense of that salary amount: People who think that's a lot of money probably don't know the sacrifices [I] made to get the ministry started. [I] had no salary in the first years of the ministry and bought equipment for it with [my] teacher's retirement pay.[66]

(DF) Kevin Eigelbach, staff reporter for the Kentucky Post, reported an interview with Ken Ham's salary for 2001 and Ham's defense of that salary amount: People who think that's a lot of money probably don't know the sacrifices [I] made to get the ministry started. [I] had no salary in the first years of the ministry and bought equipment for it with [my] teacher's retirement pay.[67]

Um, DF? ‘reported an interview with Ham’s salary’?? Could we just go with my version, which makes far more sense? agapetos_angel 03:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

(AA) AiG's Warwick Armstrong, in a 2001 article discussing media coverage of an AiG Supercamp/Conference in Sydney[68], responded directly against criticism of this nature: Having worked full-time for Answers in Genesis for the past ten years, I have yet to see much of this money. Having come from the business world, I am aware of the wages and conditions which exist there. Many people in AiG are working for a third (or less) of what they would receive in secular jobs. Further, as we travel throughout Australia and the world doing our talks we are mostly billeted with supporters, gladly accepting whatever (free) accommodation is available. Conversely, evolutionists seem to have access to limitless funds, ultimately coerced from taxpayers, to promulgate their religion."

(DF) AiG's Warwick Armstrong, in response to Archbishop Hollingworth's comment that 'Creationists have a lot of money and they are very smart', said: Having worked full-time for Answers in Genesis [Australia] for the past ten years, I have yet to see much of this money. Having come from the business world, I am aware of the wages and conditions which exist there. Many people in AiG are working for a third (or less) of what they would receive in secular jobs. Further, as we travel throughout Australia and the world doing our talks we are mostly billeted with supporters, gladly accepting whatever (free) accommodation is available. Conversely, evolutionists seem to have access to limitless funds, ultimately coerced from taxpayers, to promulgate their religion.[69]

As I pointed out above, my version is more accurate because it give the context of the article (as RfC point toward doing), as well as not saying that it was in response to a quote that may or may not be found to be accurate. Armstrong said what Holllingworth is ‘quoted as saying’, not what Hollingworth said. Important distinction. If Armstrong said ‘he said’ or similar, then you’d have a good point. As such, ‘responded directly against criticism of this nature’ is more accurate. Can we go with this, or a similar, version? (Please excuse the numbers rather than the links, as it was copied and pasted, not edited for 'neat'-we can clean that up later) agapetos_angel 03:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

DF response

Let me be very clear that I have no agendas in my edits regarding AiG. My only purpose for being involved with this project is to see that AiG is treated fairly. I want to see this article well written including criticisms. I don't think NPOV is reached by trying to balance each side, but is reached by allowing each side to be accurately represented.

Opening sentence: I believe using the word "weathered" implies that AiG has somehow survived a crisis and is too strong. I think the difficulty you had in finding sources to back up this section refute that this criticism is an area that plaques AiG. How about a compromise and we open the section saying, "AiG has been criticized…" or something to that fact.

Csharp paragraph: In my opinion, this quote is the most influential quote to show that AiG is "in it for the money". I've been thinking that I would like to include Sharp's full quote including his belief that Lisle may be delusional.

Henke paragraph: As you can obviously tell, I am not trying to whitewash this whole section. I just didn't think the quote by Henke was a criticism towards AiG. It was more directed towards their financial supporters.

Warner paragraph: If we are going to mention the countersuit, shouldn't we also mentioned the basis for it? I am not trying to whitewash the countersuit, I was just trying to be brief and only presenting information that I thought was important. Here's another suggestion, since we are mentioning the lawsuit, why not provide a source for it? AiG has posted a copies of the court filing[52][53] (not sure if that's the proper word for it).

Guidestar paragraph: I am fine with your rewording. Let's flip the salary range so that it goes from lowest to highest. I think that is the proper way to report a range. See comment below about CN.

Kentucky Post paragraph: I am fine with your wording. Never mind what I wrote, I was just trying to improve it and that was an incomplete draft that slipped past me.

Armstrong paragraph: I think providing context for a quote is only necessary when it helps better interpret the quote. In this case, I don't describing the article adds any value to the quote. If you think it does, go ahead and leave it in there. I was just trying to keep the section brief where it made sense. I am against your wording of ‘responded directly against criticism of this nature’. Are we in a position to judge what Hollingworth's meant? All he said was 'creationists have a lot of money'. Since we don't know the exact source of this quote, we can't even be sure he had AiG in mind when he quoted this! I agree that we should proceed with caution since we can not verify this quote (I tried searching for it on Google with no success). Maybe we should just give the context of Armstrong responding to criticism of 'creationists having a lot of money' and leave Hollingworth's name out of it.

On the CN data: I think it is almost irresponsible for us to be aware of data and objective rankings provided by CN. Personally, I would like to see even more info from CN included. Everything else in the section is the opinion on one side versus the opinion on the other side. Here's some hard data and it needs to be included. I've already included the data that compares Ham's salary to the national average for religious charities (something that even CN advices us against doing!). When you say we must then include all the negative aspects of the CN data, what exactly are you referring to? CN has given AiG good ratings that they rightfully deserve. We shouldn't be trying to reach NPOV by making sure the positive-negative scales are balanced, but by making sure that each side is fairly represented. I think that is unfair to AiG to censor this data that treats them favorably.

I am too busy to make a rewrite now. I can make an attempt in the next few days if you don't want to. DennisF 14:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

AA response

Let's agree, then, that introducing a POV or failing to correct to a NPOV is not caused by either of us serving an agenda. My concern is not that 'AiG is treated fairly' (or that the critics are treated fairly for that matter), but that the information is accurately represented. The first is the job of their PR department; the second is the responsiblity of the editors here. You said, 'I don't think NPOV is reached by trying to balance each side, but is reached by allowing each side to be accurately represented'. These two things are often intertwined, though, Dennis. For example, to accurately represent the material on CN for inclusion, 'the bad and the ugly' has to be presented with the 'good'. More on this below.

Opening sentence: I will agree to different verb usage, but prefer that it flows from the other criticisms to keep the section from reading choppy. There wasn't difficulty in finding sources that criticise 'in it for the money' (remember that at first it was direct criticism of Ham; Criticisms of AiG being 'in it for the money' are more vast than the ones supplied, actually but I didn't want to oversource in heaps of negative (google AiG+Plimer, for example; however, inclusion would have necessitated far too much space coverage, which I wasn't prepared to do, for accurate representation of the issues. That mention would be nearly an article in itself.) To my eye, 'weathered' was more like standing in a storm, blowing back (criticism) and forth (replies). I'll wait to see your rewrite; see how we go.

Csharp paragraph: This quote is definitely one of 'the most influential quote[s]'. Quoting the entire section and adding more appears to be more to discredit Sharp than to just report the information in the concise manner requested by other editors. Do you really think it's a good idea to add then, then have to address 'his belief that Lisle may be delusional'? I'm sorry, but introducing extraneous information can sometimes (like in this instance) introduce undue weight by 'opening a can of worms'. My version provided the background that Durova suggested. It also briefly indicates who the critics are and where they come from, which can be just as important (e.g., NAiG articles are by their very nature written with criticism directly against AiG; therefore, that needs to be pointed out).

Henke paragraph: It was more directed towards their financial supporters: I strongly disagree. There was no indication that the supporters were to blame; Henke laid it all on the shoulders of the ones that he accuses of taking the money. AiG is often referred to as the largest YEC ministry; therefore, it is appropriate to use this generalised complaint.

Warner paragraph: If you want to add a paragraph/section about the lawsuits, by all means do so as a separate section. Opposition to the land developement and the museum is well sourced. However, brief indication does not equal presenting half the story. That 'poisons the well'. Better to exclude all, or more accurately, to include lawsuit/countersuit, then write about the lawsuits there in more detail in another section. Didn't check the source, but if it's accurate and relevant, why not use it?

Guidestar paragraph: Agreement reached (?) - The salary ranking was changed by Ashmoo, so check her reasons before changing it back, I'd say.

Kentucky Post paragraph: Agreement reached (No worries. I've done the same sort of thing. Easy when there is heaps to discuss.)

Armstrong paragraph: By all means, then, leave the context out (I was trying to meet that request across the board; hated that inclusion actually as it was far too wordy). Let's just let Armstrong speak for himself by saying something very brief like '... Armstrong disagrees' then the quote. Armstrong provides enough background in that quote for it to be self sufficient. ... Armstrong is for his full name and I'd say that there should be indication of his ties to AiG. That allows appropriate caution to that bit.

On the CN data: Dennis, I'll give you time to look back over the history of the article and talk addresses this point fully. It's not censoring data, but rather keeping undue weight from creeping into the section. Adding the CN data postive necessitates adding the CN data negative for accurate reporting. We've been back and forth on this issue, and I have to strongly stand on it all goes (brevity) or it all stays (undue weight). I vote for brevity over undue weight.

I'll wait a day or so to see your re-write attempt. Thank you for continuing to work this out in compromise. agapetos_angel 02:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Forgot to add that I'd removed the section pending agreement on the best wording to avoid any appearance of edit warring. agapetos_angel 03:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't been keeping up with with the arguments on this page due to being busy with work. I'd just pop in to respond to the salary order section. I definitely think it should go from highest to lowest. Ordering should be most significant to least significant and in this case the higher salaries are more significant to the premise of the paragraph. Ashmoo 22:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

No worries. Makes sense Ashmoo. I'll wait another day to see if Dennis makes the re-write, and if not, I'll post a compromise that includes the agreed upon points with my points which can be addressed/edited later. agapetos_angel 02:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Working copy of Financial Motivations Section

Speculations about financial motivations and accusations of financially-driven agendas have been directed at AiG.

Dr Christopher Sharpe[54], in an article critical of young earth creationism and AiG's Dr. Jason Lisle, speculated on the reasoning for Lisle's involvement with AiG given his academic credentials saying:

The most favorable explanation is that he is so deluded that he no longer can think rationally. Somewhat less favorable explanations are that he is in it for the money and/or the pride. Getting a research position at a university is difficult, and if you get one it is a lot of hard work with bad pay. Going around the country talking about creationism and writing glossy creationist books is easy and pleasant work, with easy money, and one is at the top of the field with no competition. One can bask in the glory of showing Christians that one is a “true” Christian who knows science.[55]

Jennifer Warner, a plaintiff in a lawsuit against AiG attempting to block their land acquisition for the creation museum near her home[56] and the target of a countersuit charging defamation of AiG[57], was quoted by Lexington's Ace Weekly[58] and Cincinnati's CityBeat[59] saying, "It's all about making money. They're masquerading behind this Creation museum because they can make more money when they claim religious discrimination. They've worked all the Baptist churches."

Kevin Eigelbach, staff reporter for the Kentucky Post, in an October 2002 article about AiG reported Ken Ham's salary for 2001 and Ham's defense of that salary amount: People who think that's a lot of money probably don't know the sacrifices [I] made to get the ministry started. [I] had no salary in the first years of the ministry and bought equipment for it with [my] teacher's retirement pay.[60]

According to IRS tax form 990 filed by AiG for year 2004 and made available online by Guidestar, the AiG-US total revenues were $10,423,222 and total expenses were $8,320,926 with Ken Ham being compensated $185,572.[61] According to Charity Navigator, an organization dedicated to guiding donors of non-profit charities which awarded AiG three out of four stars, Ken Ham's compensation was above the national average of $97,357 for CEO's of religious based charities. When CEO compensations are compared as a percentage of total expenses, Ham's compensation of 2.23% is less than the national average of 4.34% for religious charities. Form 990 also shows some of the highest paid AiG staffers being compensated between $115,621 and $86,068 in 2004.

AiG's Warwick Armstrong, in response to a comment amount creationists having a lot of money, said:

Having worked full-time for Answers in Genesis [Australia] for the past ten years, I have yet to see much of this money. Having come from the business world, I am aware of the wages and conditions which exist there. Many people in AiG are working for a third (or less) of what they would receive in secular jobs. Further, as we travel throughout Australia and the world doing our talks we are mostly billeted with supporters, gladly accepting whatever (free) accommodation is available. Conversely, evolutionists seem to have access to limitless funds, ultimately coerced from taxpayers, to promulgate their religion.[62]

Comments

I've just posted my last edit. I know there will be some points AA disagrees with but hopefully we are moving closer to the text we can both agree on.

Intro sentence: I still think we should avoid using the word "weathered" as it can mean different things to different people (such as the both of us). Hopefully, my new intro statement is one that you will agree with.

Sharpe quote: I have included the full quote. It only adds one short sentence and I think it now flows much better. Sharpe makes two speculations on Lisle's involvement with AiG. He calls one "most favorable" and the other "less favorable". To clip his quote and focus on only one speculation while clipping the one he considers "most favorable" might be quoting out of context.

Warner: I am only briefly mentioning the lawsuit/countersuit with a link to AiG if anybody wants to see the details of the court filings.

Armstrong quote: I think it is important to include the context of what Armstrong was quoting so I have introduced the quote as being a "response to a comment amount creationists having a lot of money". I think that is precise yet keeps us out of trouble for not knowing the exact quote from the archbishop.

The Guidestar paragraph: I still don't follow your reasoning for leaving the CN data out. Why does the CN source have to be an all or nothing? What's wrong with being brief as I have and only mentioning the data that is most relevant to the amount of Ken Ham's salary? I have included a comparison of Ham salary to averages regardless of the size of the charity (a comparison that CN themselves advices us from doing but I am including it as a compromise) as well as to the average when based on a percentage of expenses. Maybe the reason I don't have a problem with the CN data is because I view it as being mostly favorable to AiG. You seem to think that the data on CN is mostly unfavorable to AiG thus any mention of CN that appears as being favorable to AiG is then misrepresenting it. Is this your reasoning for wanting it excluded? DennisF 18:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

This is a collective award, so I invite everyone here to copy and paste it to their own user page. Good work. Durova 20:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I award The Resilient Barnstar to the editors at Answers in Genesis for overcoming their differences and collaborating toward a better article. Durova

• The Resilient Barnstar

The Resilient Barnstar may be given to any editor who learns and improves from criticisms, never lets mistakes or blunders impede their growth as Wikipedians, or has the ability to recover/finish with a smile.

Thank you, Durova. That was very kind. I appreciate your suggestions and assistance in this and other areas. agapetos_angel 01:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It's recently been established that agapetos angel is personally involved in AiG, the topic of this article. Based on recent disruptive behavior, agapetos angel is enjoined by policy and precedent from further editing on this topic. FeloniousMonk 04:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

false. Kim Bruning 07:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Such a preclusion does indeed exist. Arbcomm has made a number of findings and rulings that editors should not participate on topics in which they are personally involved. Here's two off the top of my head: [63] [64] [65] There's also WP:AUTO#Creating_an_article_about_yourself and WP:BLP#Malicious_editing which are analogous. FeloniousMonk 07:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Cautioned, not enjoined. You are making statements where it is not your place to do so. Kim Bruning 07:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Other's have been enjoined by the arbcomm for this same behavior. That's called precedent. Precedent establishes common law. Enforcing policy is very much within the purview of an administrator's duties, even when such policy is established by precedent. The distinction here between cautioned and enjoined is soon to become academic if agapetos_angel continues disrupting articles she's personally involved in. FeloniousMonk 07:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not satisfied that the messagebox really is the best way of delivering your personal concerns about certain editors, Felonious. This fellow you named presumably has a talk page and you can go there and have a bit of a natter and tell him about your concerns. This kind of hostile notice really poisons the well of any discussions here, so I'm removed it. --Tony Sidaway 07:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Taking it to her talk page has been tried for weeks and is not an option any longer; she simply deletes all comments, warnings, cautions, etc. as "trolling" or "vandalism," often accompanied with a personal attack. [66] Try asking Guettarda about how well that works. Agapetos_angel, by lying about her personal role and involvement at Answers in Genesis and with Jonathan Sarfati and dismissing all attempts to curb her highly pov editing and 3RR vios has left us little option but an infobx. FeloniousMonk 07:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to try a block to get her attention, and if that doesn't work and you want that ban to have teeth you should go to arbcom with the case, and once they accept it, if the situation really is dire, apply for a temporary injunction. --Tony Sidaway 19:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Wise advice. Agreed. FeloniousMonk 17:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Misrepresentation. Guettarda posted repeatedly on my talk page (10 times in one day, one edit was to put quote marks in a header that I created), which were viewed after attempts to discuss the matter as a continuing disruption because of the bolded accusations of lying, dishonesty, lies, etc. that he was making (archive). I told him twice to stop or I would remove any future posts, which I did [67]. Claiming it is a personal attack to say that behaviour was trolling is incongruent. I posted once on Guettarda's talk page, and it was removed with the edit summary 'deleted trolling', and his old talk page had the statement that trolling would be removed. Therefore, as pointed out to FM already, deleting after warning, and using edit summary in the same vein that Guettarda used, hardly constitutes a personal attack by me, no matter how many times and places FM repeats it. To be consistent, FM would also have to accuse Guettarda of NPA violation as well. agapetos_angel 05:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Stop

Sannse requested a *STOP* [68] so any further failure to address these continuing accusations is to be viewed as a compliance with that request rather than an inability to defend. agapetos_angel 05:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins interview

I know how easy it is to cut and splice video footage. Both sides use this technique on many issues, sometimes legitimately (as when cutting out lengthy pauses or unimportant material). I daresay it becomes illegitimate when one answer is cut and pasted after a different question.

A hilarious example of this technique (in audio) is depicted in Good Morning, Vietnam. The Robin Williams character splices in an insulting question to an interview with former VP Richard Nixon:

• Q: What can you tell us about your testicles?
• A: That they're soft and they serve no purpose.

Is this sort of thing related to the practice of out of context quotation (or don't we have an article on this sort of manipulation)? --Uncle Ed 19:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Ed, Take a look at this forum post by Glenn Morton. He is an outspoken creationism critic and he saw the raw footage of the interview and claims there was not cover-up on behalf of AiG. DennisF 19:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like the original question was:

• Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?

And that (1) Dawkins asked for the tape to be stopped. And then (2) He replied:

• "There is a popular misunderstanding of evolution that says that fish turned into reptiles and reptiles turned into mammals and and so somehow we ought to be able to look around the world today and look at our ancestors. We ought to be able to see the intermediates between fish and reptiles and ..."

That leaves us two issues:

1. Is Glenn Morton to be trusted?
2. What is the significance of this Question and Response pair?

Sounds to me like it relates to the idea of a Missing link, but I must say I don't understand either:

• what a genome is
• what the significance of increasing information in a genome is

Is someone using this exchange to make a point? If so, we need to identify what point they are making and who endorses that point. Something like

• Evolution opponent Fromm Z. Thinnair asserted in his 2002 book Dumb Dumb Dawkins that Evolution supporters have never been able to explain the natural processes which increase genome information. Thinnair further argues that this failure undermines the entire scientific foundation of evolution.

If we can find a real quote (mine is, I hope you realize, completely made up from the thin air ;-) then we can balance it with a rejoinder from an Evolution advocate. Something like

• Evolution advocates such as the AAAS have provided several examples of this process (see Information in the genome)

Does this help? --Uncle Ed 22:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html oh and what is an "evolution advocate?" — Dunc|☺ 22:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Glenn Morton is an ex-YEC. HE seems to be trusted at Theologyweb.com. PrometheusX303 01:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Glenn Morton has published on Talk Origins [69] agapetos_angel 03:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Morton is a reliable source, he has some weird ideas about what caused the Noah's flood legend but in terms of evidentiary issues like this he should be more than reliable. JoshuaZ 03:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey all: The fact is that after Dawkins was "caught on the hop", he asked for the video to be turned off. The recording company did this, but they kept the audio running so that they would have an uncut record. After Dawkins alleged all the junk about how they were trying to deceive their viewers, the recording company released the original uncut audio. I have personally spoken to AiG staff that has listened to this audio and it is obvious that Dawkins was and is still lying.

So I propose that I replace the current section with the following:

==Controversy over interview with Richard Dawkins==

In 1998, Answers in Genesis filmed an interview Richard Dawkins, a prominent evolutionary biologist and Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. Extracts from the interview were included on a video From a Frog to a Prince, distributed by Answers in Genesis. The interview, which can be viewed at an Answers in Genesis web page [70], appears to show Dawkins nonplussed and pausing for 11 seconds when asked by the interviewer to name one example of an evolutionary process which increases the information content of the genome.

In an article by the Australian Skeptics [71], it was alleged that the film was carefully edited to give the false appearance that Dawkins was unable to answer the question and that the segment that shows him pausing for 11 seconds was actually film of him considering whether to expel the interviewer from the room (for not revealing her creationist sympathies at the outset). Dawkins reported to the Australian Skeptics that the interviewer shown in the finished film was not the same person as the person who had originally asked the questions. Furthermore, it was claimed that the question had been subsequently changed to make it look like Dawkins, who was answering the original question put to him, was unable to answer.

Answers in Genesis has responded in an article Skeptics choke on Frog: Was Dawkins caught on the hop?. According to their account, the raw footage shows that Dawkins, who had previously been informed of the interviewer's creationist sympathies, was asked the same question and could not answer. The video merely has the exact question, faint on the raw footage, re-stated for clarity.

Answers In Genesis states that Dawkins, after pausing for a long time (unable to answer), asked the recording company that did the video to stop the video. According to AiG, they did this but kept the audio running in order to preserve an uncut original. This audio, which was released to the public, confirms the statements made by Answers In Genesis.

Any disagreements? If not, I will go ahead and post it as shown above. In Him, standonbible 12:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be anything more than a restatement of the paragraph above this one. --ScienceApologist 14:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not a restatement. The "paragraph above it" never mentions the uncut audio which is what I am trying to talk about. standonbible 12:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Science and creationism

From the article:

• AiG has compiled a list of "scientists alive today who accept the biblical account of creation" to show that it is possible for a modern working scientist to accept creationism.

The sentence touches on the dispute over whether a modern working scientist can accept Creationism. But is it an either-or question?

Creationism is split into schools of thought. One aspect over which creationism is split, is whether:

• God created all forms of life at once (say, a million years ago or even much less); or,
• God created all forms of life gradually, over the same period of time which geologists and biologists say life appeared

Is this related to various attitudes toward the fossil record? Unificationist scholars, for example, all accept the fossil record and join mainstream biologists in dismissing Young Earth creationism as pseudoscience. So where does this leave creationists who accept the fossil record?

Can all opponents of evolution can legitimately be lumped together, or are there significant differences among creationists that deserve to be distinguished?

At any rate, we ought to clarify who is accusing whom of pseudoscience and why. Perhaps a chart or table would help. Uncle Ed 12:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

totallydisputed tag, do we still need it?

Just checking with the other editors before I remove it. I don't see an active disputes over the existing content in the article. DennisF 13:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)