Talk:Creation Museum/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Removing unsupported statement from lead

I'm removing this sentence from the lead because there are no independent and reliable secondary sources that support it: "Tenets of Young Earth creationism nevertheless enjoy substantial support among the general population in the United States, contributing to the museum's popularity." —PermStrump(talk) 02:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the removal, Permstrump, but I'm afraid I didn't think the sentence you left in its place "Museum officials have been satisfied with the rate of attendance to the museum nevertheless" worked very well. It's not really relevant to the rest of the paragraph, and in context it reads a bit like a change-the-subject creationist retort (which I'm sure was the last thing you intended). I've removed it. Bishonen | talk 15:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC).

Bishonen: I'm totally fine with that. I was going to delete it completely and then thought I should trying to re-word the pre-existing sentence in a way that was honest and reflected the sources, which at the end of the day, wasn't really worth saying. —PermStrump(talk) 16:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Add'l excessive detail

I'm not sure what the purpose of this explanatory material is. I've not removed it, but would like to bring it to community attention:

• In 2007, The Kentucky Post reported that the Creation Museum employed between 10 and 20 security guards armed with .40 caliber Glock handguns and three certified law enforcement canines. When asked about the level of security, AiG Security Director Jeff Hawkins commented, "You try to raise the level of security according to the level of the property you're protecting... We really feel that we will be a high-profile cultural property, which requires a different level of security... You try to strike a balance between providing a good, safe environment and not overdoing it, and not underdoing it." Prior to the museum's opening, AiG requested that the Boone County Sheriff's Department grant its security force additional police powers. AiG officials said the grant was necessary to give their guards access to additional training and equipment; they maintained that the organisation did not seek arrest powers for their guards and that they would allow the sheriff's department to specify which additional powers would be given. Sheriff Mike Helmig denied the request because the officers did not have the training required of his department's law enforcement officers. AiG said the decision illustrated their point—their guards could not access the training without being granted police powers, and they could not be granted police powers without the training. After being refused by the sheriff's department, AiG petitioned then-governor Ernie Fletcher to grant the additional powers, but received no response.

References

This is citing to local press, with it being mostly a retelling of AiG's positions. Again, similar to above, this appears non-neutral (victimhood) and does not seem relevant or informative. In addition, this is also dated (2007 events being described). K.e.coffman (talk) 02:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Please just remove it. Bishonen | talk 15:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC).

I'm wondering whether it might be a good idea to put back a single sentence, stating that the Museum retains armed guards. That's rather unusual for theme-park-like establishments, and strikes me as noteworthy. No need to get into AiG's position, and the local press should be an RS for this information. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Good idea. I was not able to find the original article "God, Guns, Guards & Dog" that was used in the article. Here's a Salon.com source that discusses armed guards: "Inside the Creation Museum" -- this one may work to support a one-sentence mention, as suggested by Tryptofish. Would that work? K.e.coffman (talk) 20:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Overly detailed sections

Thank you User:K.e.coffman for tagging the History section as "overly detailed". I would go further; I frankly don't think any of the "History" section is of interest to the general reader. (Or to anybody, for that matter. If it was interesting to admirers of the museum, wouldn't there be some of that kind of material on their website? But there is nothing like that.) The section should be removed as pointless padding. The rather nice image could go somewhere else in the article. Bishonen | talk 15:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC).

I believe the section "Exhibits and displays" has the same problem. The section reads like a virtual tour. If readers are that interested they should visit the museum, or go to the museum's website. I tagged the section accordingly. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I've been going very carefully through the recent edits, and I think that they have been good. The only edit in the past 24 hours or so where I have some reservations is what I said above, about maybe putting back a brief sentence about the armed guards. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I removed this section in its entirety as discussed above:

Extended content

In 1996, AiG petitioned the Boone County government to rezone 40 acres (0.16 km2) of land near the intersection of U.S. Route 42 and Kentucky Route 338 from agricultural to recreational use to facilitate the construction of what was then called the "Genesis Park-Museum and Family Discovery Center". An organization called Concerned Citizens of Boone County argued that the offices and mail order business proposed as part of the center were inappropriate for the rural location proposed for construction. The secular humanist organization The Free Inquiry Group claimed the rezoning and construction conflicted with a portion of the county's comprehensive plan to build "a proper museum" at Big Bone Lick State Park, an internationally known geological site containing fossil remains of mastodons, sloths and giant buffalo located 4 miles (6.4 km) from the proposed site. The Free Inquiry Group also expressed concern that the museum's promotion of a creationist worldview would undermine the exhibits at Big Bone Lick. In October 1996, the Boone County Planning Commission recommended approving the rezoning by an 9–4 vote after Answers in Genesis' agreed to limit the museum's hours of operation and construct buildings with designs that blended in with the surrounding countryside, but the Boone County Fiscal Court voted 4–0 against the proposal in December. In June 1998, AiG announced plans to seek rezoning of an alternate 47-acre (0.19 km2) site south of Interstate 275 in Boone County from residential to industrial. The proposed project included the organization's headquarters, an educational center, and the renamed Creation Museum of Natural History. AiG noted that rezoning the area from residential to industrial was consistent with the county's 25-year projection. The Kentucky Post reported that, "The public comments on the proposal steered clear of the religion-vs.-science debate that generated much of the opposition in 1996", but county officials expressed concern that building public water and sewer infrastructure to support the site would attract further growth to the rural area. In response, AiG proposed to construct an on-site well and package waste water treatment plant. AiG also agreed to change the entrance to the facility from Deck Lane to Bullitsburg Church Road, limit its development to 25 acres (0.10 km2), and submit a proposed building design so planners could review how well it fit in with its proposed surroundings. Following these concessions, the Planning Commission's zone change committee recommended approval of the rezoning by a 3–2 vote, but the full commission rejected the proposal by a vote of 9–5. After the Boone County Fiscal Court unanimously refused to overturn the Planning Commission's ruling in November 1998, AiG filed suit in the Boone Circuit Court. AiG Executive Director Ken Ham explained the rationale for the lawsuit: "The county had told us weeks ago we would have to provide that infrastructure, so we agreed to that, and now they say they can't rezone the property because it doesn't have "necessary" infrastructure in place... This is a type of Catch-22 and shows the clearly arbitrary nature of their decision." The terms of all of the commissioners on the Boone County Fiscal Court expired in January 1999, and the new members of the court agreed to negotiate with AiG to settle their litigation. As part of those negotiations, AiG agreed to refile its rezoning request to change the designation from residential to public facilities, a lower-impact designation than industrial. The Kentucky Post reported that the fiscal court received 562 letters and a petition with 2,670 signatories supporting the revised proposal. In March, the zone change committee again recommended the change by a 3–2 vote, but the Planning Commission rejected it by a vote of 8–6. The Fiscal Court overturned the Planning Commission's decision in May by a 3–1 vote. In June, a group of property owners near the proposed construction site filed suit against the Boone County Fiscal Court and AiG, charging that fiscal court commissioners met with AiG officials outside the context of a public meeting and that Commissioner Robert Hay should have recused himself from the vote because he had a conflict of interest by virtue of appearing in promotional materials for the museum. AiG countersued, seeking to recover its legal costs. In February 2000, a circuit court judge dismissed the claim against AiG. Announcing that his clients would not appeal, attorney Jay Fossett explained, "they don't have the same war chest as Answers in Genesis". References

If there's anything useful that needs to be pulled from here, please let me know. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Reviews and Reception

These appear to be the same thing, no? Perhaps two separate sections are not needed? K.e.coffman (talk) 05:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree; that bothered me too. My suggestion is to have, first, a section on Opening (rather than Reception), with a subsection under it, on Attendance. While we are at it, I would move History to before Opening, after Purpose. So, Purpose, History, then Opening including Attendance. Then have Collection. Perhaps Visitor experience would become a subsection of Collection, although I don't think that's particularly necessary. I would then have a Reception section after Visitor experience, and that would be combined with what is now Reviews. We probably need to subdivide the Reception section due to its length, and I'm not sure how to do that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Image gallery

I'd like to suggest deleting the image gallery at the end of the Visitor experience section. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support, K.e.coffman (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Sounds good. —PermStrump(talk) 07:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Agree. Is there any chance we could place the images in other verious places in the article, or are there too many images already? --1990'sguy (talk) 17:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Agree, but what I think could be better is to have an editor with some copyright experience evaluate the copyright status of all the images. I'm not sure about all the rules regarding pictures of dioramas being derivative works and such. If they are all good, we should retain them on Commons for potential future use. If some of them are deleted, we may want to disperse what is left throughout the article. I'd also like to know the rules because I have some additional pics of the museum that I haven't uploaded yet, and which might be useful, depending on their copyright status. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: (Not an expert) but believe that any exterior shot on public property is fair game. Inside the museum is different. Permission from the site owner is required. Thus "own work" rationale, unless officially donated to Wikipedia by an official, is questionable copyright. I believe that the "Inside Noah's ark" photo falls into this category. It could sustain "Non-free/Fair-use" rationale for this article, but not for Commons. Other than that

There are already plenty of images in the article, so the "low-information" images are not needed, I believe. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Nope. I wrote WP:AAFFD, and I've learned a lot about Wikipedia's WP:Image use policy. The images are all photographs of the displays, and the photographs were taken by a Wikipedia editor. The Museum is open to the public, and permits the public to take photographs. In legal theory, this gets into something called Freedom of panorama, but we don't need to belabor that here. The bottom line is that every image in the gallery is already hosted at Commons, and there is no copyright issue, because the copyright belongs to the editor who took the photos, and the editor uploaded the photos under the CC-by-SA license.
• I would be in favor of moving images out of the gallery and into individual positions as "thumbnails", unless we run into problems with crowding. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done I moved all of the images into the main text. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Creation Museum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/ap_050523_creation_museum.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Disappointed/Progress

I am disappointed that multiple suggestions across multiple talk pages that editors with concerns should leave them on the talk page before making rapid-fire edits are being absolutely ignored. I am going to have limited availability over the next few days, and with the rate and scope of edits being performed, it will take a long time for me to sort out the changes and respond to the rationales, when offered. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

K.e.coffman is moving all major deletions to the talkpage, so I think it shouldn't be to difficult to go through the material to see what is pertinent that could be re-worded. —PermStrump(talk) 13:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I've been editing this page for a fairly long time, and I know from experience that Acdixon has always been a good-faith and collegial editor to work with, even when we disagree about content. I'll also say that I am trying to monitor all the edits very carefully, myself. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Great, thank you for keeping an eye on the article. Please advise if any of the recent edits may have been problematic. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I just made a large number of edits. A lot of them were minor, gnome-like fixes. However, I also carefully checked the recent edits by other editors, and I reverted everything with which I disagree, outside of the issues that have been raised in talk sections above. I also reorganized the Collections section, so that commentary follows the descriptions, instead of being intermixed with it, and consequently I removed the tag about too much detail. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. I may come back with a few minor things, but mostly I agree.

I hope that Acdixon does not mind that I renamed the section to "Progress" ( :-) ) as the article seems to be progressing well, with Tryptofish proving excellent oversight and feedback. But please feel free to change back to the previous section name. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that you should speak for whether or not another editor is still disappointed, so I just changed it to "Disappointed/Progress", to reflect both views. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to get the still-open issues that have been raised in recent discussions resolved fairly soon. There are several talk sections where I have suggested something specific, and no one has yet raised objections, so if no objections emerge soon, I'll just go ahead and make those edits. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

"Scientific consensus" wording

This has been debated at length @ Talk:Ken_Ham#Scientific_consensus_wording, and the resulting consensus was to avoid these constructions. The current article contains the following statements that could be problematic, and should probably be reviewed for NPOV:

• While the museum's displays contradict scientific consensus.... (i.e. the article could state that "the displays contradict science").
• The Kentucky Post editorial board, lamenting the fact that the museum's premise contradicted scientific consensus, said that, "Answers in Genesis is a sophisticated operation... (also: "lamenting" is POV -- similar to "complaining")
• Ken Ham stated that creationists accept that natural selection allows species to change over time, but disagree with the scientific consensus first posited by Darwin that it allows one species to evolve into another.
• This contradicts the current scientific consensus that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. (exactly the same turn of phrase that was discussed in the linked Talk page topic).

Thoughts on this? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I haven't taken part or seen the discussion at the Ham page, but with respect to evolution versus creationism, it would be encyclopedic malpractice to describe the views of scientists as anything less than "scientific consensus". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Right. Personally, I'm fine with "scientific consensus". This consensus is not something that can be simply dismissed. The consensus covers all sorts of things we understand, including pretty much the entire subject of geology, much of biology, astronomy, anthropology, and even our understanding of the development and evolution of language. Not to mention our understanding of how the text of Genesis (and the Torah) came together (Creationist beliefs contradict much of what is accepted, even, by most Jews, and Genesis is first a Jewish book). Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Should the wording in this article align with Ken Ham article? Separately, is there anything wrong with saying: "the displays contradict science" or "Ham accepts that natural selection allows species to change over time, but disagrees with evolution"? This is both simpler and avoids potential misinterpretations. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

No, I disagree. Scientific consensus, and theory of evolution. Those are general terms. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The bigger problem here is that in some of these cases "scientific consensus" is editorializing that isn't found in the source. I haven't looked at all of the sources, so it might be true for all of them. It seemed to me that the editorializing was being used as the rack on which to hang the coats that followed... OP gave this as the first example: "While the museum's displays contradict scientific consensus...." Well the rest of that sentence is, a Sunday Independent columnist said in 2007 that "there are plenty of Americans ready to embrace Ham and support his museum", citing the fact that the $27 million museum was entirely privately funded, and a Gallup public opinion poll showing that almost half of Americans agreed with the statement "God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years."^[1][2] That Gallup poll doesn't have anything to do with the museum, but it sounds relevant, because the premise of the sentence. I removed that whole bit earlier this morning, but someone re-inserting it saying it was related. It's not. —PermStrump(talk) 21:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

It's also a misrepresentation of what the first source said about the funding. The whole thing is a load of WP:SYNTH, which is what I wrote in my edit summary when I removed it. —PermStrump(talk) 21:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

If we mention scientific consensus, which we should, it needs to be something like "overwhelming scientific consensus". Simply stating it as 'consensus' isn't really NPOV; there's such a huge amount of evidence that there's literally no credible theory that the Earth is only a few thousand years old.GliderMaven (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The Sunday Independen passage is in the current version of the article:

• While the museum's displays contradict scientific consensus, a Sunday Independent columnist said in 2007 that "there are plenty of Americans ready to embrace Ham and support his museum", citing the fact that the $27 million museum was entirely privately funded, and a Gallup public opinion poll showing that almost half of Americans agreed with the statement "God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years."^[3][4]

K.e.coffman (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I know. :( I removed it here, saying "unrelated to museum WP:SYNTH" and it was reinserted here by Andy Dingley saying, "Not unrelated." Neither source says anything about "scientific consensus". The Sunday Independent mentioned the museums funding, but it does not pit the funding up against science to prove that the museum has popular support despite scientific consensus. In fact, that article is very critical of the museum when you read the whole thing, which I have access to. The gallup survey doesn't mention the museum. It's a textbook example of WP:SYNTH.

I haven't checked all of the sources for the quotes you mentioned involving the phrase "scientific consensus", but I have a feeling that a lot of them were used similarly way to frame something as "us vs them" or to get away with inserting material from a completely unrelated source. —PermStrump(talk) 22:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm somewhat receptive to the argument that we need to be careful about SYNTH, if the cited sources do not talk at all about contradiction of scientific consensus. But if the sources link what they say to some aspect of the Museum being non-scientific, I don't see it as SYNTH. They don't have to say exactly that it contradicts scientific consensus, just that it is contrary in some way to science. Also, looking more closely at the examples in the opening post of this talk section, some of the issues (in bold font) are largely about something else. For example, the Kentucky Post passage should simply change the word "lamenting" to something like "noting" or "saying". But that does not seem to be a problem with framing it in terms of scientific consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I guess the point I was making was that where the phrase "scientific consensus" appears in this article, it might be a red flag that we should scrutinize the next couple of sentences for relevance and synthesis. Going with the example that references the Sunday Independent and Gallup, yes the article in the Sunday Independent talks about the museum being unscientific, but the wording in the article makes it sound like there are secondary sources saying that despite what scientists think, regular Americans embrace the museum as evidenced by the $27 million raised in private funds to support the museum's opening and also evidenced by the results from the Gallup survey. In reality, neither source says anything remotely similar to that! WP:SYNTH says: "Do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." Well, that was not close to a conclusion the Sunday Independent was making and the Gallup source doesn't even mention the museum and has no place at all in the article. They show what people believe about the age of the earth, but that does not equate to support for the museum. WP:SYNTH: "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." —PermStrump(talk) 01:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm trying to get a better understanding of whether or not we have a SYNTH issue here (and I know what SYNTH says). Something I don't understand: if the piece about the Gallup Poll presents the poll results, indicating the level of public belief in creationism, and the same source also says in some way or another that creationism is unscientific, then I do not think it is SYNTH to cite the source in this way. If the Gallup source does not mention the Museum, then we must not imply that people were polled about the Museum, but it is still relevant if they were polled about creationism. Likewise, the Independent source explicitly talks about "plenty of Americans" embracing the Museum. If that source also says in any way that the Museum is unscientific, then again, it is not SYNTH. I'm basing what I said on AGF of the discussion here, and have not read the sources myself, so perhaps I misunderstand. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The quote from the article is as follows: "The construction of the museum was funded by private donations. In other words, in a country where the evolution-versus-creation debate is alive and raging, there are plenty of Americans ready to embrace Ham and support his museum. A recent Gallup poll in America showed nearly 50 percent of people accepting the notion that, 'God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10 000 years or so'." This directly connects the fundraising to the viability of the museum ("in other words"). It also implicitly notes that the "evolution-versus-creation debate" is somewhat of an American phenomenon, and cites polling to support that idea and the idea that plenty of Americans are ready to embrace Ham and the museum. So the sentence in question does not engage in any synthesis vis a vis the original source. This paragraph should be restored. It explains how this museum which is widely mocked can be viable in America, which might be of interest to the rest of the world, where there is apparently much less dissension from evolution. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

If I understand that correctly, "the article" being quoted is the one from the Independent. In that case, there is no need to separately cite the Gallup poll, and indeed there is no SYNTH. I expect that I will restore that material in the near future, unless someone else does it first. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Conferences

This appears to be intricate detail and / or synthesis:

• Conferences: The Northern Kentucky Convention and Visitors Bureau used the museum's opening as part of their overall strategy to appeal to the religious conventions since meetings with religious sponsors accounted for 20 percent of the conventions held in the Greater Cincinnati area in 2006. In 2007, the bureau reported that a record $325 million in visitor spending—a 23 percent increase over the previous year—and attributed the increase to the region having more attractions, including the Creation Museum.

References

I've removed it but open to other interpretations. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm unsure. Might it be noteworthy that a regional convention and visitors bureau would be targeting religious conventions, and might it be significant information how much money the Museum and related facilities attract? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I considered deleting that part the other day, but I thought it was mildly interesting and decided to move on to more obvious issues first, so now that we're talking about it... I think it needs to go. The first source is entirely speculative and the second source is a passing mention that's basically still speculative. Idk if other people can access them, so here are some quotes...

2007 article (My emphasis underlined)

• The still-under-construction Answers in Genesis Creation Museum in Boone County could prove to be a godsend in efforts to persuade religious groups to hold conventions or major meetings in Greater Cincinnati.
• Julie Calvert [vice president of marketing and strategic development for the Cincinnati USA Convention and Visitors Bureau] said the fact that the museum is located nearby would be part of the presentation to religious groups that are considering Cincinnati as a convention destination...About 20 percent of the conventions that come to Cincinnati have religious sponsors, she said.
• Caradonio and Pat Frew, director of communications for the bureau, said it was too early to determine whether any of the convention planners would bring their organizations to Greater Cincinnati. Both said that many of the major meetings are planned four or five years in advance.

2008 article

• The Northern Kentucky Convention and Visitors Bureau reported an all-time high in visitor spending, at the group's annual meeting Wednesday. In 2007, visitors to Boone, Kenton and Campbell counties spent $325 million, 23 percent more than 2006. The region attributes much of its earnings in having more attractions, including the Creation Museum. "Another reason is that our convention meetings and business meetings numbers seem to be holding up even though our economy is struggling," Bureau President and CEO Tom Cardonio said.

The 2007 article is purely speculation about the future and the 2008 article is so vague that it's meaningless. They don't tell us what portion of the increased tourist spending was attributed to the Creation Museum and that's the only mention of the Creation museum in that article anyway, so it's hardly noteworthy. —PermStrump(talk) 08:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

As for the first part, the point is that it has been a strategy, so there is no problem with saying that they intended it that way. (In contrast, there would be a problem if we said that it had worked.) I agree with you that we should not over-infer about the contribution of the Museum to the overall dollar amount.

I propose:

• The Northern Kentucky Convention and Visitors Bureau used the museum's opening as part of their overall strategy to attract religious group conventions, which account for significant amounts of visitor spending in the area.[1][2]

--Tryptofish (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

This seems minor, but this sentence is kind of vague: "The Northern Kentucky Convention and Visitors Bureau used the museum's opening as part of their overall strategy to attract religious group conventions, which account for significant amounts of visitor spending in the area." -- i.e. the reader might ask: did this strategy work? Are they still employing this strategy? Has the museum had any impact on the convention business? It's been nine years, so I assume some sort of results would have been apparent and would have been reported on. As fas the the article reporting on CoC statement, this sounds like low-information sentence and could probably go. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I realize from your comment that "account" should change to "accounted", but I otherwise disagree, because this would be in the context of history or opening. It already makes clear that the strategy was generally productive, because there was a significant amount of spending. Whether or not the strategy continues to be successful nine years later is an interesting question, but it is not a valid reason to omit history. Encyclopedias report things that have happened in the past, and we should not impose a criterion of only reporting stuff that editors think turned out well. As I said earlier, it is noteworthy that a municipal convention bureau would target business based on religion rather than on general tourism. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

np, then; the version you outlined works well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K.e.coffman (talk • contribs) 20:18, June 15, 2016‎

 Done Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done The current wording is worse: The Northern Kentucky Convention and Visitors Bureau used the museum's opening as part of their overall strategy to attract religious group conventions, which accounted for significant amounts of visitor spending in the area. It's OR/synth and it's contradicted by other sources we've used in the article, including the one from March 2007 that we cited at the end of this passage that says major conventions are planned 5+ years in advance. It's also potentially contradicted by a different source in the Reactions and reviews section that quoted an AP article talking about a complaint the bureau received in August 2007 about the language they were using to promote the museum on their website. For all we know, that could have been enough to make them abort their whole plan. Or maybe they fired the lady who spilled the beans to the paper because they thought she was bad for PR. It only says that the bureau was going to promote the museum as part of their strategy, not that they did, but our article has it in past tense as if we definitely know they followed through with those plans.

Also, it's wp:synth because we've now combined 2 sources to draw a conclusion that isn't supported by either source: that the bureau definitively promoted the museum and that their promotion directly resulted in increased visitor spending driven by conventions at the Creation Museum. In reality, the only conclusion we can verifiable draw from the 2008 source is that the museum was "new attraction" and that the visitors bureau partially attributed the increase in visitor spending in 2007 to the museum. We can't conclude anything about conventions or whose marketing strategies worked. Maybe what really happened was that the bureau never ended up promoting the museum and there was increased visitor spending that year simply because they had a new attraction with a lot of media buzz. Then we'll ave been making concrete-sounding claims about things that have nothing to do with reality (and could potentially cause more people to complain about how the visitors bureau is spending tax-payer money), which is one of many reasons why wp:speculation is WP:NOT encyclopedic.

Just to be clear, I don't think this is an example of egregious POV pushing or anything and I think it's an easy mistake to make, but I'm emphasizing it because this kind of OR/synth is a major recurring issue for this article and this is one of the more concrete examples. (I'm also not implying that the same editor is responsible for all of the synth.) I'm bringing this up more as an example to illustrate a point. —PermStrump(talk) 01:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm very receptive to changing my mind on the basis that there are contradictions from other sources. That's fine, and I'm happy to discuss it. But I also am not wild about the sarcastic use of "not done" (whether or not it was intended as sarcastic, that's how it comes across), as well as the condescending reference to it not being "egregious". Until now, I wasn't going to bring up the issue of POV-pushing, but I think that last comment has opened the door. @Permstrump: @K.e.coffman: The ways in which you are editing seem to me to be getting uncomfortably close to POV-pushing, in the sense of an anti-Museum POV. You need to dial it down, and allow more for talk page discussion before pushing ahead. Anyone who gets familiar with my editing will know that I am very pro-science and opposed to anti-science content. But I am seeing what you are doing here as going over a line, into trying to make this page reflect unfavorably on the page subject. It's a fringey page subject, I know, but we still must give the subject a fair representation of its side of the story, rather than selectively keep that side out because it is "wrong". I'm going to start reverting your edits more aggressively than I have been doing up to this time. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Ham's straw man

Tryptofish you added back this Ham quotation with the edit summary, "it goes to the motivations for making the displays the way that they are", but while Ham is a reliable source for his own thoughts and opinions, he's not a reliable source for commentary on others, so I propose:

"Prior to the museum's opening, Ham stated, "We're putting evolutionists on notice: We're taking the dinosaurs back... They're used to teach people that there's no God, and they're used to brainwash people. Evolutionists get very upset when we use dinosaurs. That's their star."

If you don't like the shorter version of this quote, is there a different one that expresses a similar sentiment that you know of that we could use instead? —PermStrump(talk) 10:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

If we follow your argument, then we have to delete a lot of the criticism of the Museum, on the grounds that the critics do not really know what Ham et al. think. Ham is not stating, as a fact, in Wikipedia's voice, what the evolutionists believe or what their motivations are. He is stating what the Museum people think about the matter.

Let's just omit "That's their star.", which sounds odd at that point, but leave the rest in. I'll make that edit now, pending further discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

If we follow your argument, then we have to delete a lot of the criticism of the Museum, on the grounds that the critics do not really know what Ham et al. think.←Ham isn't a reliable source for commentary on others in the context of this article, because his COI (among other things) makes him a WP:QUESTIONABLE questionable source and QSs are explicitly "unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties". The lines I struck out are contentious, because they're absurd. There are no reliable sources supporting his claims that "evolutionists" go around telling people not to believe in god or brainwashing them. And scientists aren't territorial about creationists using dinosaurs, which is how that quote makes it sound; according to every reliable sources, scientists are upset that Ham is misrepresenting science and they use the dinosaur exhibit as an example. It's unbelievably unencyclopedic for us to perpetuate Ham's straw man without better sources. —PermStrump(talk) 23:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC) ETA 02:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

You seriously misunderstand some important aspects of how Wikipedia deals with these kinds of issues. WP:COI has nothing to do with someone who is not an editor. Ham is indeed an unreliable source for what those other people are thinking. But he is a very reliable source for what he is thinking. It's a quote. Our readers do not want us to treat them as simpletons who cannot evaluate opinions for themselves. No reader of the page is going to think "Ham says they are brainwashing people, so that must mean that they are brainwashing people", unless that reader already agrees with YE creationism. Instead, the quote shows the reasoning behind the dinosaur displays at the Museum. The fact that it is self-serving merely goes to show why such a museum would even exist. You seem to think that Wikipedia must somehow speak for the "good guys". That's not how it works. This is a page about a very WP:FRINGEy museum. And we should not present the fringe views as true, in Wikipedia's voice. But we cannot have a page about such views if we censor them from the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

It appears to be that quoting this from Ham ("They're used to teach people that there's no God, and they're used to brainwash people. Evolutionists get very upset when we use dinosaurs. That's their star.") is giving undue weight to a fringe opinion. It's Ham's opinion that "Evolutionists get very upset when we [YEC] use dinosaurs". From my reading of he article, evolutionists are upset because the museum is bad science (or anti-science), not because of the dinosaurs. I'd be fine to keep "We're putting evolutionists on notice: We're taking the dinosaurs back...", but the rest should go IMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I linked to the wrong policy. I meant to link to WP:QS, which says: Questionable sources are those that...have an apparent conflict of interest...Questionable sources should only be used as sources for material on themselves...They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others. (See also WP:INDY.) It also gives wp:undue weight to wp:fringe views. There are a million reasons why those nonsense claims that Ham made about "evolutionists" have no place in this article. And yes, having an encyclopedia article that contains dubious information runs the risk of people believing that information, and at the bear minimum, it will reaffirm some people's already flawed beliefs about what scientists/evolutionists are teaching, which is not encyclopedic. According to the WP policies, we can offer what Ham says about himself and his motives and people can choose whether or not to believe it, but it's not ok to offer his statements about others as if there's a reason to believe he's a reliable source in this context for what his biggest critics do and say. —PermStrump(talk) 02:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

What you are both arguing is that Ham's statements should be removed because they are wrong. It would indeed be wrong for us to say those things in Wikipedia's voice, but it is appropriate to present them as quotes with attribution. Ham is a reliable source for what Ham thinks. We are not restricted to quoting people only when they are right. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Bird evolution, race theory

Bird evolution

I removed this passage, as it appears not to add value, especially the latter part which reads like unnecessary science education, and is unrelated to the Museum:

• The museum is critical of evolutionary theory that links dinosaurs with bird evolution. The second room of the creation museum for example displays a model prehistoric Utahraptor, stating that the species was featherless and had no connection to birds, referring to Genesis 1, which states that birds were created before the advent of land animals. Biologists and paleontologists pointed out that the discovery of a Velociraptor forearm bearing quill knobs, distinct structural parts of bones onto which feathers are anchored, provides further evidence that dinosaurs in the Dromaeosauridae family, informally called "raptors", had feathers.

References

Open to other opinions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

My initial inclination is to disagree. The first part seems to me to be a significant aspect of what the Museum presents, and reflects the views of the Museum organizers. I think it is desirable for the page to present specific examples of what the Museum presents and how the underlying opinions relate to mainstream science. Maybe it could be made more succinct, and could only cite scientific sources that are specifically about the Museum. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment: If restoring, the I would just go with the 1st sentence, but shortened. The last sentence appears to teach the reader science (i.e. unrelated to the topic at hand). K.e.coffman (talk) 02:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The second sentence describes in a specific way what the displays are. Let's restore the first two sentences and omit the last sentence. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

agreed. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Tower of Babel

I was not quite clear what to do with this statement from Ham, cited to AiG blog:

• In response, Ken Ham posted on his blog that "The 'Confusion' section (dealing the Tower of Babel) in the Creation Museum teaches that all the people groups on earth today are descendants of the three sons of Noah—obviously so, as Noah's family was the only family to survive the Flood," but, referencing the book Darwin's Plantation (since retitled as One Race, One Blood) that Ham co-authored, he adds, "dark-skinned people ("black" people) are certainly not 'the cursed offspring of Ham.' In fact, it is only one of Ham's sons who was cursed (and not Ham himself)—the younger son Canaan... And this 'curse' of Canaan has absolutely nothing to do with skin shade! We do not teach that 'all races stemmed from the children of Noah'—as we explain, there is only one race biologically of human beings (as we are all descendants of two people, Adam and Eve)—different people groups, but not different 'races.'"

References

This appears to be unneeded explanation on Ham's racial theories (?). In any case, this seems unrelated to the topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, it does look like it should at least be shortened, and be more careful about not saying what Ham said in Wikipedia's voice. Maybe it would be enough to shorten it to "In response, Ken Ham posted on his blog that "The 'Confusion' section (dealing the Tower of Babel) in the Creation Museum teaches that all the people groups on earth today are descendants of the three sons of Noah". --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

In this paraphrased version it reads like Ham expressing his creationist world views, and is not really about the museum. Perhaps try another version, or not have this in the article at all? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

In context, Ham is responding to accusations of racism, so if we omit his response, I think NPOV requires us to also omit the accusations that are still on the page. Yes, Ham is expressing his views. That's really the point. We should not omit his views because editors consider those views to be "wrong". And if the accusations are based on a Museum display, then his views here are related to the Museum. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe it's fine that he's responding on his blog, and it would be okay to include if these opinions were noted by independent secondary sources. Otherwise, we're pitting secondary sources vs primary ones, which may be undue weight. Ham responded on his blog, and that's fine. I don't believe there's a need to reproduce his rebuttal in the article. Thoughts? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

But you aren't pitting secondary against primary. At least in the case of PZ Meyers, you're pitting primary against primary – Meyers' blog against Ham's. And you're letting Meyers put words in AiG's mouth by saying they are pushing a racist theory and then trying to delete Ham, the AiG rep, saying they are not actually saying that. That's first rate POV-pushing right there. I would argue that the Phelps quote has the same problem. NCSE isn't really an independent, secondary source. It's an organization with a clearly stated agenda and a bias against Ham and AiG. If they want to talk about their disagreement with what the museum clearly presents, that's fine, but if they want to claim the museum says something when the spokesman for the group that owns the museum says it does not (and has actually written at least one entire book about AiG's views on race), that's not OK. I'd be glad to nuke everything from Phelps' quote on, but we cannot leave Phelps and Meyers putting words in AiG's mouths without allowing in Ham's response. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding the place in the article that we're talking about for context. Which source was Ham responding to? —PermStrump(talk) 03:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind. I found it. It would be undue to include Ham's self-published rebuttal in this situation. It might be different if it was a response to criticism about Ham personally, but this is a critique of displays at the museum, not a BLP, so even paraphrasing from his blog in this case would bring NPOV and wp:fringe issues. —PermStrump(talk) 03:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Acdixon, and I haven't been persuaded to change my mind from what I said earlier. Attempting to shut out Ham's argument, while allowing an accusation of racism to remain on the page, really strikes me as POV-pushing. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree with having both removed; the racial theories of YEC do not appear to have garnered sufficient coverage. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

History section

Still sorting through the overwhelming volume of recent changes. I notice that nearly all of the history and construction information has been eliminated. Do we really think no one is interested in the uproar over the museum's proximity to Big Bone Lick State Park, known as the birthplace of American paleontology"? We're not interested in the fact that AiG wasn't able to build on the site it originally planned because the CM would also house the organization's headquarters, including its book distribution operation? (In fact, the article now only obliquely alludes to the fact that the museum also doubles as AiG's headquarters. Shouldn't we note a major purpose of the building in an article about the building?) I'm not saying all the details have to go back in word-for-word, but I wonder if we didn't sacrifice some content just so we could combine the History and Background sections, which are different in purpose and scope. I think they should be separated again and some of this detail restored. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

This was discussed here: Talk:Creation_Museum#Overly_detailed_sections. I don't believe these details are needed; the sources appear to cover mostly what the museum is now rather than its background, construction, etc. Museum being AiG headquarters appears to be intricate detail; it kind of makes sense that they would make use of the space, right? K.e.coffman (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

That discussion occurred largely when I was unable to contribute. The sources also cover the background and construction, as evidenced by the fact that the information was cited to reliable sources before it was deleted. This kind of material is appropriate for an encyclopedia entry on a building. You will notice significant sections on the planning and construction of say, the White House or the Eiffel Tower. Now, I'm not putting this article on the same level of importance with those, but the fact remains, they are about the same kind of thing, (i.e. a structure) and it is appropriate to comment on the planning and construction of a structure, especially when said planning and construction was the subject of some controversy, as this was.

Also, for the record, I missed the mention of the AiG headquarters bit in the lead, so that's my fault. Trying to digest too much too quickly. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Visitor experience section -- images

Now that the images have been relocated, it feels like image overcrowding -- looks like a brochure, rather than an encyclopedia. I suggest that at least two be removed, such as "Tower of Babel" and "Working the ground" -- these appear to be low-information images and can be safely skipped. Thoughts? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm cool with it. I thought I was supporting deleting them all to begin with when we talked about getting rid of the gallery. I removed a few other non-pertinent ones just now, but couldn't remember which ones you'd mentioned here, so left that section alone. —PermStrump(talk) 14:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, let me know what you think of it now. I moved the image of the building's exterior to the infobox and then spaced out the images more in the #Visitor experience section. —PermStrump(talk) 16:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm receptive to removing a few of the smaller and lower resolution images, but I don't think we need to remove very many. After all, the page is about a "visual" subject, in that museum displays are intended to be viewed. I also want to comment about how the two of you seem to be very eager to combine sections, as in folding Attendance into Opening. Wikipedia has multi-level section headers, and we should use them. There is no guideline that requires having as few page sections as possible. It serves the reader better to make it clear where the subject changes from opening to attendance, rather than to make the reader infer it as they read an "Opening and attendance" section. I'm sympathetic to shortening the page, where it has been overly verbose, but there is no need to go overboard with it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I will remove two and see how it looks. In general, it's a pet peeve of mine to have one sub-section in a section, especially if they are both short. It looks odd to have:

Opening

Lorem ipsum lorem ipsum

Attendance

Lorem ipsum lorem ipsum

There were a few instances of this. So it's more from aesthetic reasons. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Aesthetic is subjective, whereas making things clearer for readers is substantive. Is there a guideline about not having single subsections? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Praise for displays

I disagree with this edit, which removes the fact that the quality of the museum's displays has been praised, even by critics, and replaces it with a sentence about the museum being controversial and the subject of critical commentary. Both sentences are true, but I don't see a reason to replace one with the other. The given reason was "rm duplicate info as the displays are covered in the preceding para; also more reflective of the content provided in the article". Well, then the sentence should have been moved to the more relevant paragraph, not deleted. It's not as though the new sentence isn't redundant, as the preceding paragraph also says "Scientists and educators have expressed concerns that the museum misrepresents science and could have a negative impact on science education. Proponents of other religious beliefs about the Universe's origins—including old Earth creationism, theistic evolution, and intelligent design—have expressed criticism of the museum, saying that its rejection of scientific consensus damages the credibility of Christianity and its adherents." By contrast, although it discusses the displays, the previous paragraph does not note any praise for them, so this edit actually removed factual material. Furthermore, the sentence that reads "Critics have noted significant discrepancies between the museum's models and presentations and the geological and fossil record," was left, so apparently, discussion of the negative elements of the displays was just fine, but any discussion of the positive elements was removed. I think some of these edits are really stretching WP:AGF. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I would be okay with restoring: "Both supporters and opponents of the museum have generally praised the aesthetic quality of its displays" portion; the rest goes into detail covered elsewhere. Would that work? K.e.coffman (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I can live with that. Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not mean reverting to the prior version, which removed the summary statement that the museum is controversial, and leads with the praise for the museum. In fact, I believe that the praise for the displays should go into the body -- much more space in sources has been devoted to the (un)scientific nature of the displays, vs their attractiveness. I believe the prior version was more reflective of the article body, and is thus superior, per WP:Lead. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

The sentence about it being controversial is wholly unnecessary in light of other sentences already present in the lead regarding contradicting scientific consensus, criticism from scientific and religious leaders, and criticism from museum professionals. No reader who is halfway paying attention could miss the fact that the museum is controversial and has generated critical commentary. What is not present in the lead without the statement I added, however, is the agreement that the museum exhibits are well-done, even if there is disagreement on the content. This helps explain why scientists are so opposed to it; if it were a half-baked museum, it wouldn't be terribly convincing to anyone, but because it is not, they fear people will be misled. (This is not speculation or fear-mongering on my part, by the way. I ran across commentary from scientists that said exactly that.) The article used to note details about the folks who designed the exhibits, including some of their professional work, but I see that has been thrown out with the "nobody cares" rationale as well. I disagree with that; I just hadn't noticed it yet. In doing the research, I was struck by the broad agreement across sources and viewpoints that the exhibits were high quality. I think this belongs in the lead. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

While looking for some unrelated information, I ran across a review from Ars Technica that also praised the display quality. I've added this, as it further supports mentioning this in the lead. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:21, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Field trips

As noted above, a bit about potential church-state issues if public schools planned trips to the Creation Museum were dismissed as AiG "fear mongering". I did some more research and found that, on the contrary, the very thing being speculated in 2007 has become an issue in 2016, and perhaps earlier, although it is just now apparently being noticed. With that, I give you a rewritten paragraph proposed for re-addition to the article.

In 2007, Ham said the museum would not try to attract tour groups from public schools, explaining, "I suspect by intimidation and threats of lawsuits, I doubt whether public school students, as an official tour, would come." In 2016, however, Slate.com reported that "the Creation Museum attracts a steady stream of public schools that take their students on field trips to the museum", citing planned or completed trips to the museum by schools in Kentucky, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Further, the website reported that the museum offered an "educational group rate" to groups of 15 or more students. The Freedom From Religion Foundation wrote letters to the schools in question, demanding that the trips be cancelled, or in cases where they had already occurred, not be repeated.

Open to suggestions about where to insert this in the article. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I think that a good place on the page would be as a second paragraph of the Attendance section, because it's about students "attending". As for the content, I would prefer to leave out the beginning quote from Ham, because there is now a group rate for students, so the 2007 situation is no longer the case. I'd just start it with: "In 2016, however Slate.com reported..." --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I just made that edit, but of course we can change it if you disagree. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I can see the wisdom in deleting the Ham quote, but without it, the sentence about offering educational discounts seems sort of out-of-place. Should we remove it, too? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't feel strongly about it either way, but I would lean towards leaving it in (unless there is any reason to think that it is factually inaccurate), because it objectively describes one of the Museum's programs for attracting attendance. I don't find it to be out-of-place, because it helps explain why there are significant numbers of school groups coming there. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the student rate bit comes off promotional and it could always change in the future, so it's probably best to leave it out. Is this part reported in any secondary sources: The Freedom From Religion Foundation wrote letters to the schools in question, demanding that the trips be cancelled, or in cases where they had already occurred, not be repeated.? If not, it seems undue. —PermStrump(talk) 22:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:PSTS, I don't think that sentence you quoted involves any interpretation of what happened. It's just reporting a verifiable fact, that such a letter was sent, and that can appropriately be cited to a primary source. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I said undue, not unreliable. I've never heard of that organization. Is anyone else talking about their letter? If not, it's not noteworthy and I don't know why we'd mention it. —PermStrump(talk) 23:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, what is unreliable is you as a source for never having heard of them: Wikipedia has a page about the organization, which is why it's blue-linked. In any case, I just changed the sourcing to a secondary source. Likewise, Slate reporting on the student rate is also a secondary source. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's focus on my primary point which is that this is undue as evidenced by the lack of coverage in any normal source. The source you just replaced it with does not establish noteworthiness. What makes this nugget essential to an encyclopedia entry? As far as the student rate, I said it sounds promotional, not that it wasn't noteworthy. —PermStrump(talk) 03:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Could you please define "normal source"? I'm assuming you object to the Christian bias of OneNewsNow.com, the news division of the American Family Association. Per WP:BIASED, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." The issue is also covered by Christian Daily [5], Christian Today [6], The Christian Post [7], and the National Religious Broadcasters [8]. Americans United for the Separation of Church and State has also taken exception to public school field trips to the CM. So, you've got two very large, very notable atheist groups talking about this issue on one side and no fewer than four (not sure on the notability of Christian Daily) large, notable Christian news outlets talking about it on the other side. That makes it a notable concept. The sources don't have to be neutral to be relevant. If "mainstream" sources were required for every fact in every article, we'd have a lot fewer articles on video games, Pokemon, and comic book characters. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

By "normal" source, I mean any kind of mainstream publication that would justify its inclusion in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. "Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". See also WP:NPOV. Lots of organizations can write letters about lots of things, but if it isn't noteworthy enough to get coverage in any kind of mainstream publication, who cares? —PermStrump(talk) 14:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

This is hardly indiscriminate. (I get the feeling that you just want to delete as much as possible from this page.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

AiG rebuttal & promo offer

Similar to Ark Encounter, I'm removing the $1 promo offer and AiG rebuttal.

Wikipedia is not a news outlet which needs to reach out to the other party to give them a say. It's an encyclopedia. That is why every statement critical of AiG does not require a rebuttal. Nor is giving AiG air time for their promotions appropriate. Here's the content removed:

• In July 2016, after FFRF sent letters to 1,100 public schools arguing that field trips to the recently opened Ark Encounter, another AiG attraction, would violate the doctrine of separation of church and state, Ken Ham posted on his blog: "If public school students are booked as a group through their school to come to the Ark Encounter (or Creation Museum) for educational, recreational, or historical purposes during 2016, we will allow them to do so at a cost of $1 per child with accompanying teachers free."

References

K.e.coffman (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Per Tryptofish's logic in the discussion immediately above: "it objectively describes one of the Museum's programs for attracting attendance", particularly the kind of controversial attendance being described in the containing paragraph. Further, both the group rate still mentioned in the article and the one you deleted represent a change in AiG's position from 2007, when Ham said they would not actively recruit public school groups because they doubted any would come for fear of lawsuits. Such a change in position is noteworthy, imo. Ham's 2007 statement, of course, was deleted as "fear mongering", although it actually came to pass just as predicted. When the groups came, and FFRF threatened a lawsuit. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I have an idea: let's just keep reverting each other, instead of finding a compromise way of saying it. I think the proper thing is to include the information, but without the lengthy quote, just a paraphrase instead. I'm going to do that now. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Having this material self-cited to AiG creates an impression of Wikipedia being AiG's mouthpiece. I removed the citation. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

That was a mindless and unhelpful edit. You could have looked for another source instead. You are also at 3RR. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Once again, you fundamentally misunderstand WP:PROMO. The edits make clear that Wikipedia is reporting what AiG said. It is not endorsing what AiG said in Wikipedia's voice. In fact, there is nothing to endorse. We are simply reporting a factual action taken by AiG in response to a challenge from FFRF. AiG sites are reliable sources for what AiG said. I'm also baffled that, after Tryptofish's statement about reversion immediately above, your first reaction was still to revert his edits. You are pretty clearly engaged in an WP:EDITWAR, and this is not the first time. Your insistence on making sure "your version" is the one displayed while a discussion of disputed content is going on will not serve you well. If your problematic editing continues, I intend to seek sanctions. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

And it took me no more than one minute to find a secondary source for the same information, and I included it in my most recent edit to the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. And apparently, the Lexington Herald-Leader doesn't feel as though reporting this makes them a promotional mouthpiece for AiG. Neither should we feel that including it in Wikipedia is doing so, even if we had retained the AiG source for the information. @K.e.coffman: Are you under the mistaken impression that using the AiG website as a source for any reason automatically puts us in violation of WP:PROMO? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Woops on the 3RR. Won't happen again. What I was finding problematic is the continued citing to AiG's blog as if it was a reputable secondary source.

Separately, Wikipedia is not a newspaper and it works to academic standards, so yes, citations to social media and blogs are discouraged, as I understand. Local newspaper operate on a different mission -- their is news gathering, while Wikipedia's goal is to present encyclopedic content. That is why I do no agree with the approach of "We are simply reporting a factual action taken by AiG in response to a challenge from FFRF". Wiki's purpose is not to "report" based on primary sources -- that's what newspapers are for. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

But citing this particular information to the newspaper instead of to the blog was an improvement, right? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, definitely an improvement and upholds the WP:RS standards. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Kopplin quote

Here is my reasoning for this edit: [9]. The revert that I partially reverted (removing the word "activist" in my edit) attributes the quote to Slate. But it is actually said by the author of the Slate piece: Zack Kopplin. A direct quote should be attributed to the person who said it, and in this case it is a notable person about whom we have a bio page. Also, the original edit had several formatting errors, so I restored the fixes. And finally, this page is organized so that the criticisms are together in one section. There, the context of the school trips is preserved, and if it were left in the Attendance section, it would have been the longest part of the paragraph, and thus WP:UNDUE. And once again, I am disappointed that an editor just reverted back to an earlier version instead of trying to find an intermediate solution. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

You cherry-picked a part of a quote out of a critical article for a single fact that you liked and then called the author an activist and put other quotes from the same article in the criticism section. Completely unacceptable regardless of any excuses you think you have. Lipsquid (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I didn't cherry-pick anything. I'm not even the editor who added the quote to the page. You are. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

[I didn't add the original Slate quote. I have no idea what you are talking about. The Slate quote is cherry-picked and you reverted another quotes from the same article about the same subject and moved it to the criticism section and called the author an "Activist". The edit was completely legible and made complete sense as it was written. You only moved it because you didn't like what it said, which by definition is WP:cherrypicking Lipsquid (talk) 22:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

First of all, you don't know what I like or not like. If you were familiar with my editing history, I tend to prefer accurate information according to modern science, so I am no defender of pseudoscience. Now, let's look at the actual edits. You first made this edit: [10]. That was you, adding a quote from Slate. I did not add it. You attributed the quote to Slate, but, as I already explained above, it should have been attributed more precisely, to Zack Kopplin. I did nothing to remove the quote that you added. I moved it to the section where criticisms of the Museum are placed, and I fixed several punctuation and other errors that you made, and I attributed the quote to Kopplin: [11]. That has absolutely nothing to do with cherry-picking. And when you objected to the word "activist", I removed it, even though that is how he is described at Zack Kopplin. You subsequently made this edit, in which you removed a different quote: [12]. I am not the editor who added that quote to the page, and it was added a long time ago. And it also is what Kopplin wrote in the same Slate piece, so it's not like you needed to refute one quote from Kopplin by using another quote from Kopplin. That does not even make sense. And furthermore, this is how your edit left that paragraph:

The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) wrote letters to the schools in question, demanding that the trips be cancelled, or in cases where they had already occurred, not be repeated.[24] In July 2016, in response to FFRF's letters to schools, Ham posted on his blog that student groups would be admitted at $1 per child and no charge for accompanying teachers."[25]

How does that even make sense? What are "the schools in question"? What are "the trips"? Without the opening sentence, the rest of the paragraph becomes meaningless. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I must need to speak slower. The original quote was WP:Cherrypicking. I added another quote from the same source. You, yes you, moved the additional quote to a different section, Criticism, and labeled the writer an activist. Please undo the revert. What you left is WP:CHERRYPICKING Lipsquid (talk) 23:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey, all. I see what's going on here. The quote Lipsquid has an issue with is "the Creation Museum attracts a steady stream of public schools that take their students on field trips to the museum", not the more recently added one. However, the assertion that the quote was "cherry picked" is also inaccurate. If you will read this thread above, and the fifth, first-level bullet of this one, you'll see that the paragraph was intended to address the controversy over whether field trips to the museum were a violation of the separation of church and state. When added, the quote was preceded by "In 2007, Ham said the museum would not try to attract tour groups from public schools, explaining, 'I suspect by intimidation and threats of lawsuits, I doubt whether public school students, as an official tour, would come,'" which set the context for the paragraph. Later, this sentence was removed, and with it the context, making it appear that the Slate quote was cherry-picked. I didn't notice this at the time. If we can restore the original first sentence, or craft another one that similarly provides context, I think we can resolve this. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the research and the recommendation. Yes, adding the previous context would resolve my concern about the appearance of a quote being cherry picked from the negative Slate article. Lipsquid (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I think that restoring what Ham said about there being a campaign of intimidation, which is dubious, would make things worse, not better. If all that fuss was over the fact that Slate was being directly quoted for the information that the field trips were happening, it's a simple enough solution to paraphrase instead of quoting directly. That avoids implying that Slate approved of the field trips. The information itself remains reliably sourced. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Controversial

Regarding this edit, where else on Wikipedia do we preface YEC in such a way? Moreover, what is the purpose for doing so? It is clear to anyone who reads this article, or the linked article on YEC, or the rest of this article's lead, that YEC is controversial. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@Lipsquid, 1990'sguy, and Proxima Centauri: Folks, there's a discussion thread here. Can we stop the edit war and discuss? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I am trying, you two revert everyone's edit you don't like, but are allowed by everyone else to add your own edits freely. It isn't just me, go look at all of your own unreverted edits and compare it to what you two have done with the edits of others. What is happening, like with the editor who put the word controversial in front of YEC, is actually not good faith. It looks more like WP:OWN. You don't like controversial which is nice and a factual statement and really middle of the road neutral, so I changed it to pseudoscience. I am sure that will be reverted too Lipsquid (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

There is no reason to add a descriptor there. It is clear that YEC is controversial. As for the "pseudoscience" edit, that seems more like an anti-YEC edit above all else. It is also clear by reading the YEC article, this one, and virtually every other article related to this subject, that YEC is widely considered as such. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Right on time, thanks. If everyone agrees it is pseudoscience, why do you want the label removed? I personally thought controversial was beter, but you reverted it. Lipsquid (talk) 14:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't want either version. I think, btw, that the "pseudoscience" version is worse. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, I reverted once, then when that edit was disagreed with, I started a discussion here and invited all participants. How many discussion threads have you actually started regarding your edits or anyone else's on these articles? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't have ownership issues and revert edits I dislike. My reverts are most likely to be to reinstate an edit of a third-party editor that you or 90's guy reverted. It is all in the log. Just look through it. Lipsquid (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Strong interest in a topic is not the same as WP:OWN. I'm aware of the page histories. I'm also aware that, after a revert or two at max, which is allowed and even explicitly endorsed by WP:BRD, I have left the article in whatever state it is – which is often a state I disagree with – to come here and discuss. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be agreement (here at least) that YEC is pseudoscience. Not every high school kid who wants to read up about the creation museum knows that. Let's keep the term, pseudoscience with a link to the article so readers can find out what pseudoscience is. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

There are better ways to mention the fact that YEC is widely considered to be pseudoscience. Does it even have to be in the intro? Also, YEC is so radically different from evolution that even high school kids would notice that difference and that it is not generally accepted. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

If Pseudoscience is not clearly shown as pseudoscience and as erroneous this can damage the reputation of Wikipedia. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@Proxima Centauri: Then why did you undid my edits? K.e.coffman (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I read the 'Difference between revisions' incorrectly and reverted something I shouldn't have. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Removal and tagging of info in lede

I disagree with this edit, this edit, and this edit. Most of these facts are mentioned in the body, and even if they are not in the body, I'm sure they could easily be verified. Wasn't there a consensus last month to include this info in the lede? --1990'sguy (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Then please add the content to the article with suitable references! The lede only summarises what is already in the article body. Theroadislong (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Addressed in detail below. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

"Erroneous"

YEC should never be described as "erroneous" in Wikipedia's voice. Yes, it's widely considered pseudoscience, but it is clear simply by reading any article related to this subject that it is considered as such. BTW, Wikipedia's reputation is damaged enough already because many people (including myself) think it is actually biased against YEC (and for other reasons of course). This is a very controverisal subject here. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Could you elaborate? The article currently states: "A. A. Gill, a British writer and critic, described the museum as "battling science and reason since 2007", writing: "This place doesn't just take on evolution – it squares off with geology, anthropology, paleontology, history, chemistry, astronomy, zoology, biology, and good taste. It directly and boldly contradicts most -onomies and all -ologies, including most theology."" So it's not clear to me why the YEC beliefs cannot be described as erroneous. Am I missing something? K.e.coffman (talk) 18:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Criticising YEC doesn't damage Wikipedia in the opinions of educated people who understand science. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Creation Museum 10.png

A display in the museum portrays humans as coexisting with Tyrannosaurus, which the museum erroneously presents as vegetarians

The statement "Consistent with YEC, the museum erroneously depicts the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs." is considered by user User:1990'sguy to be controversial? Are you seriously suggesting that it is NOT erroneous! Would you disallow the same wording at flat earth? Of course it's erroneous and Wikipedia sides with the scientific consensus. Theroadislong (talk) 18:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Issues of whether it is erroneous aside, I'm wondering why it is necessary. The rest of the sentence ended (but has now been changed) with "contradicting the strong scientific consensus". You literally cannot reach the end of the sentence without seeing how scientists contradict what is depicted by AiG's displays. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I moved it to the front of the sentence, to avoid awkward structure. But I'm still curious why "erroneously" cannot be used here:

• ...Tyrannosaurus, which the museum erroneously presents as vegetarians

What is "extremely controversial" about such phrasing? K.e.coffman (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing controversial about the phrasing. Tyrannosaurus Rex was not a vegetarian and no one put a saddle on one either. To say either is so dumb, it is funny. The article should be much harsher to any anti-science or pseudoscience positions portrayed.  ::WP:PSCI - Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science, but characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods. Conversely, by its very nature, scientific consensus is the majority viewpoint of scientists towards a topic. Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community. Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included. This helps us to describe differing views fairly. Lipsquid (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

In their revert "Wikipedia should never use this wording in its voice. If you want to add this, discuss on talk page first. This is extremely controversial", editor 1990's guy removed two instances of "erroneous". I'm still waiting to hear why this characterisation is considered problematic, and by whom. Is there perhaps a policy I'm not aware of? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• I am in favor of saying "erroneous". It simply is accurate. Likewise, I am in favor of saying "pseudoscientific" as more precise than saying "controversial", and either is better than leaving the adjective out. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Here's what I find interesting. When I started working on this article, I tried to distribute the "Criticism" section throughout the article so that the criticism was addressed as it was relevant to the aspect of the museum being discussed at that point in the article. After K.e.coffman's purge in June, the criticism all migrated back to a Reactions section. OK, fine. Now the argument is that the article requires us to criticize the content as it's discussed AND dump more in the Reactions section. Are both really necessary to communicate to the reader how the scientific community feels about the museum and its message? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the answer is unambiguously "no". I will actively oppose any insertion of criticism at length outside of the appropriate section. The rest of the page should be objective statements of fact. However, single-adjective descriptors are not the same thing as sentence-length or longer descriptions of what critics have said, so I really do support the use of these adjectives outside of the Criticism section. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm obviously in the minority here, so rather than making my case in front of editors who openly and viciously abhore YEC, I will just point out that reliable sources (that I found in a quick google search) are much more fair to YEC. In these articles about the Ark Encounter - I'm not just speaking for this article - ([13], [14], [15], for example) the words "pseudoscientific" and "erronious" are not mentioned in every sentence describing AiG and its views. And it doesn't take a Sherlock Holmes to figure out that the writers of these articles probably think just as highly of YEC as many of the editors on this talk page. Even people who do think that YEC is pseudoscience think that the current wording here isn't good (as I saw in the comment below). P.S., due to lack of time and will, I will not comment here anymore. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Lead sourcing

Per WP:WHENNOTCITE, "Citations are often omitted from the lead section of an article, insofar as the lead summarizes information for which sources are given later in the article". Three {{cn}} tags have been placed in the lead, and two have since been deleted with the contention that they do not appear in the article. The deleted sentence was: "Both supporters and opponents of the museum have generally praised the aesthetic quality of its displays, but some have noted significant discrepancies between the museum's models and presentations and the geological and fossil record." The supporting statements from the body are:

• Kelly and Hoerl describe the interactive Noah as "remarkable", noting: "Noah is imbued with human affect and individuality, including complex physical features and detailed bodily movements; his speech patterns, facial expressions, and bodily gestures are in near-perfect sync with his eye, mouth, and head movements; and his hair, skin tone, and musculature closely imitates real human features."
• Jonathan Gitlin, reviewing the museum for Ars Technica in 2007, said the museum's displays were "on a par with the better modern museums I've been to".
• "Trollinger and Trollinger called the museum "an impressive and sophisticated visual argument on behalf of young Earth creationism and a highly politicized fundamentalism".
• "Krauss stated that "[On a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being best], I'd give [the museum] a 4 for technology"

Formerly, the article also contained:

• "Lawrence Krauss opined that the museum's exhibits were comparable to those of "very fancy natural history museum"."
• "In his 2007 review of the museum for the National Center for Science Education, Daniel Phelps noted that some of the museum's dinosaur models reflected an incorrect or obsolete understanding of their physical appearance, including an Iguanodon whose skin texture differed from that indicated by the fossil record, an "outdated tail-dragging" Tyrannosaurus, and a cycad tree that looked like a "giant pineapple".

These seem to have fallen victim to K.e.coffman's mammoth purge of information from the article in June. I hope to go back through and see what of that information should be restored, but it will take time. Regardless, the statement that was deleted is decidedly supported by cited material in the body of the article. It should be restored.

The remaining statement tagged as needing a citation is: "Tenets of Young Earth creationism enjoy substantial support among the general population in the United States". This is supported by:

• Nevertheless, a Sunday Independent columnist said in 2007 that "there are plenty of Americans ready to embrace Ham and support his museum", citing the fact that the $27 million museum was entirely privately funded, and a Gallup public opinion poll showing that almost half of Americans agreed with the statement "God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years."
• In the introduction to their 2016 book Righting America at the Creation Museum, Susan and William Trollinger noted "the Creation Museum lies squarely within the right side of the American cultural, political, and religious mainstream... it represents and speaks to the religious and political commitments of a large swath of the American population."

Again, the lead sentence draws support from multiple, cited statements in the body. The tag should be removed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There's a lot to consider there, and I haven't yet digested all the details, but I want to say now that I think that it would be better to provide cites in the lead for anything that is contentious in nature, so I am OK with the requests for cites. And I think that it would be a simple enough matter to find cites in the body of the article, and then cite them also in the lead, by using the <ref name=___> notation. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Fine. Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:23, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

A quote from an opinion piece from an obscure South African Newspaper is your reliable source for the extraordinary claim "Tenets of Young Earth creationism enjoy substantial support among the general population in the United States". I thought you were claiming to be a serious and experienced editor. I really don't know what to say, other that isn't going to stay in the article unless you get an actual reliable source, like in the last decade and from the US, preferably not in Kentucky. Lipsquid (talk) 21:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Part 2

Concur with Lipsquid; "substantial support among the general population in the United States" is indeed an extraordinary claim. Perhaps YEC enjoys support among Cristian fundamentalists? Or a subsection of them? I am a sample of one, but I've never heard of YEC before stumbling onto Ken Ham's article a month ago. I live in the U.S. and generally keep up on the cultural trends. So "general population" seems off base. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Theology is supposed to be theology and science is science. They play nice most of the time, but when one side gets in the other's territory, people have to say "no, that is nonsense" and the criticism should go both ways. Lipsquid (talk) 22:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Gallup polling shows that almost half of Americans believe "God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years." This polling has been fairly consistent for at least a couple of decades. What does this say, if not that almost half of Americans agree with the basic premise of YEC? As to how it came to be cited to a South African newspaper, and not one of the many other sources where I found it referenced, see the lengthy discussion at Talk:Creation Museum/Archive 3#General_approach. (Might be helpful to use your browser's find function; it's an involved archive, but it does show a healthy, civil negotiation about this article's content.)

As for "an actual reliable source, like in the last decade and from the US, preferably not in Kentucky", how about a scholarly book, published in the last year by a major US university press that is literally quoted from in the article? Quoth Trollinger and Trollinger: "the Creation Museum lies squarely within the right side of the American cultural, political, and religious mainstream... it represents and speaks to the religious and political commitments of a large swath of the American population." (emphasis mine) Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 00:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

The same source states: "“Young Earth creationism holds sway in fundamentalism and in a good part of evangelicalism,” said William Trollinger. But it was popularized among Christians in 1961 with the publication of “The Genesis Flood” by the late Henry Morris and by John Whitcomb, who attended Tuesday’s ribbon-cutting." -- I'd be curious to know what percent of U.S. population is Christian fundamentalist, and, separately, evangelical? We could go from there. Cited via: A flagship for a biblical worldview, The Washington Post, 8 July 2016. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Add: According to Pew, 25% of U.S. population is Evangelical Protestant. I assume Christian fundamentalism is a subset of that? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

You need to answer my questions before I answer yours. Gallup polling shows that almost half of Americans believe "God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years." This polling has been fairly consistent for at least a couple of decades. What does this say, if not that almost half of Americans agree with the basic premise of YEC? Also, Trollinger and Trollinger state: "[The Creation Museum] represents and speaks to the religious and political commitments of a large swath of the American population". No qualifiers about evangelicalism or fundamentalism; it just says "the American population". If these two statements do not support the idea that "Tenets of Young Earth creationism enjoy substantial support among the general population in the United States", I want to know why, and how they should be interpreted instead. If they do, I want to know why we're still talking about this. Also, I don't know where you're going with this bit about evangelicalism and fundamentalism, but it looks suspiciously like it's heading in the direction of original research. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 11:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

The Gallup poll has been criticized for leading people to say creationism. Christians who believe man was created in God's image, which is virtually all, can only answer the question one way. Here is the question:

• Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the development and origin of human beings?

1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process.

2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process.

3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.

Plus the fact remains that you didn't use the Gallup poll as a reliable source, you used a crappy South African opinion piece and a promotional book for the Ark written by Christian apologists, so I deleted it as unsourced. You need to find a source for your claim. It is nonsense, most Christians think YEC is the fringe view of uneducated people. I am going to leave now, but this required an answer even though Trytofish got the article locked for a week.Lipsquid (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

@Lipsquid: In light of you saying that you are going to leave now because the page is full protected, I want to make something very clear to you. Yes, I raised the issue of you edit warring and I got the page protected. The purpose of full protection is not for editors to withdraw from discussion and then come back and resume editing as before after the protection is lifted. Doing so would be considered disruptive conduct. The purpose is to continue to discuss the content disputes here, on the talk page. Discussion will continue here, with or without you. I hope that you understand that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion was going fine before you went crying for protection which is about the most disruptive act one could make. I want to make something very clear to you, taunts are funny. Best :) Lipsquid (talk) 23:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Duly noted. You've been informed, and you acknowledged that you were informed. In the mean time, discussion of content continues. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion never ended, like your silly taunts. I make more posts on the talk page than you and you have more reverts on the article than I do. "you have been informed blah, blah, blah, blah" take it to a user page and stop boring/annoying people. This is for productive discussions about the associated article. Lipsquid (talk) 13:33, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding you assertion that the Trollingers are "Christian apologists", that may or may not be accurate in a general sense, but they are clearly no friends of AiG or YEC. In their summation of their book, they deal with this very issue: "As bizarre as it may seem – with its claim that the God of the Bible created the universe in six consecutive 24-hour days less than 10,000 years ago – the Creation Museum lies squarely within the mainstream of the American cultural, political, and religious right." This suggests that they are as puzzled by the prevalence of YEC as you are, but their research nonetheless showed it. This says nothing for the fact checkers at Johns Hopkins University Press, who apparently let the "egregious" error that "[the CM] represents and speaks to the religious and political commitments of a large swath of the American population" get past them when it was printed in the first few pages of the book and continue to let it go as an unchallenged assertion by the authors. This citation alone should be sufficient to support the assertion in question.

Regarding the citation to The Sunday Independent, I pointed you to a discussion that showed how we ended up with that as a citation and not a more familiar source which also reports the poll results. Presumably, you didn't bother to read it. I would have preferred a different source, but other editors in the discussion insisted on using this one. BTW, do you have any backing for your characterization of the South African newspaper as "crappy", or did you just throw that out there? Just wondering.

Regardless, none of the newspaper sources that I found reporting the poll reported any controversy surrounding it. Subsequent to your suggestion that there is, I Googled and found some mention of it. Still, if it is not being reported in the mainstream media as a serious challenge to the poll's findings, I think it would be WP:UNDUE to raise the challenge here, especially in light of the corroboration by the Trollingers. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Part 3

My advice is to avoid going into too much length about demographics and polling in the lead, except where the source material is expressly about the Museum and about how so many people visit it. Where editors are complaining that they don't like the Gallup Poll or whatever, I think it is sufficient to say something like, "According to the Gallup Poll....". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I believe that this statement: "Gallup polling shows that almost half of Americans believe "God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years." This polling has been fairly consistent for at least a couple of decades. What does this say, if not that almost half of Americans agree with the basic premise of YEC?" veers too much into synthesis. Gallup polling was not about whether respondents believe in YEC as an ideology, which the museum is about. The gap is too large to link the two.

However, including the quote from WaPo: "“Young Earth creationism holds sway in fundamentalism and in a good part of evangelicalism,” said William Trollinger." may be appropriate as this is specific to YEC and the article was indeed about AiG and its Ark Encounter. Pls see: A flagship for a biblical worldview, The Washington Post, 8 July 2016. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I fail to see your argument for synthesis. The question asks about the central tenet of YEC as an ideology. If people agree with the statement, then they agree with the ideology's central tenet. This support helps explain the popularity of a museum that otherwise would have little support. This is not synthesis.

Further, if the quote from the WaPo from the Trollingers is acceptable, then why not the quote directly from their book that says "[the CM] represents and speaks to the religious and political commitments of a large swath of the American population"? No mention of evangelicalism or any other qualifier. It speaks to the beliefs of a large swath of the American population. Period. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

This is a newer poll with nowhere close to the same numbers http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/12/darwin-day/ and here is an academic paper from polling experts from the University of Cincinnati about the faults in the Gallup poll: http://www.surveypractice.org/index.php/SurveyPractice/article/view/119/html

OK, so if I'm reading this correctly, Pew represents the creationist position with the question "Humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time". I have some nuanced objections to representing it that way, but those are immaterial here. The number of Americans holding this view, according to Pew, is 34%. Not 40-some-odd percent like Gallup, but to me, that still seems pretty substantial. I note that Pew itself draws this conclusion in the very first paragraph: "And while today it is accepted by virtually all scientists, evolutionary theory still is rejected by many Americans, often because it conflicts with their religious beliefs about divine creation." (emphasis mine) Of the three options given, only one outright rejects evolutionary theory – the option just mentioned. I wasn't aware of this poll previously, but it is probably a worthwhile addition to the article body.

Regarding the UC study, "offering these explicit response options reduced significantly the percentage of ... self-reported creationists (35% vs. 44% in the 2008 Gallup Poll)". So it looks like the authors of this study also suggest a number just north of one-third. Obviously, neither of those is really close to 44%, but I would still consider this "substantial". If we had a "fringe" presidential candidate that garnered over 1/3 of the vote, I think that would be considered "substantial" support. Apparently, academics like the Trollingers agree as well.

These articles actually further convince me that the wording should stay. The fact is, if Americans at large thought this museum was as nutty as apparently the rest of the world does, it would never have been built and definitely would not have remained open. In America, the thought lines are much different than the rest of the world, however, allowing the museum to remain open for nine years and counting and, by the last report I saw, still drawing 200K-250K visitors per year. If we remove information regarding the radically different views of Americans viz a viz the rest of the world, non-US readers are going to be confused about how and why this museum exists. This is not about making YEC look good. It is about giving the reader the full picture. All this said, I'm open to using a different term, comparable to "substantial", in the lead. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

This subject has gone over a week with no commentary. I feel I have defended both the sourcing and the original statement, and I am inclined to restore it. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I support. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

What is proposed as far as being restored? It's not clear from the discussion -- please clarify. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I would also like to see the proposed edit. As a reminder, this is the subject that got the article locked and discretionary sanctions are in place. Lipsquid (talk) 03:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The proposal is to re-insert the sentence "Tenets of Young Earth creationism nevertheless enjoy substantial support among the general population in the United States, contributing to the museum's popularity," at the end of the third paragraph in the lead. This sentence is based upon the Gallup poll results mentioned in the article and the quote from the Trollingers' book, also noted in the article. The Pew poll mentioned in this section was offered as evidence to counter the statement, but I believe it actually supports it (as noted in the discussion), and I support its inclusion at the end of the Background section as well. I will not re-hash my reasoning here. Now that you know what is being proposed, you can read the rather lengthy discussion above. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

YEC does have substantial support. I think its level of support should definitely be included in the lead as it is very noteworthy. I don't really like the word substantial, it seems like peacock or fluff, when the support really is there. I would prefer to see a percentage number from a scientifically rigorous poll. The Gallup Poll is flawed and the reasoning and third party critiques of its rigor problems are also above. I think we already agreed the number seemed to be somewhere around a third of the population from other reliable sources. Find the best poll you can with the fewest rigor problems and go with it. I have not seen any academic complaints about the Pew poll. If you can find some other poll with few rigor problems, that works for me too. The Gallup Poll with 46% of Americans being YECs isn't going to pass the sniff test and will probably be constantly questioned. Lipsquid (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@Lipsquid: Sorry for the delay in responding. I just don't have the energy to keep up with these discussions daily anymore. I'm not married to the term "substantial", but I don't think we should pin it down to a number, either. The fact is, we have two different polls showing two different levels of support. (And to reiterate, I support the inclusion of the Pew poll alongside the Gallup poll in the body of the article.) A critique of the Gallup poll is beyond the scope of this article, and it is far and away more often cited by the sources than the Pew poll. Your assertion that "The Gallup Poll ... will probably be constantly questioned," is demonstrably false; as far as I know, you are the only one to question it since it was added to the article. Can we agree on a non-numeric term besides substantial? This one seems solvable to me if we can. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 11:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I already said I was good with re-adding if you want to say just substantial, that is great. Please list the Pew poll before the Gallup poll and I will leave it alone as long as you don't quote the Gallup poll in the lead. Your opinion, or my opinion, does not matter. Academic opinions say the Gallup poll is flawed. No sane person would actually believe that 46% of Americans are idiots. Lipsquid (talk) 14:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The lead already reads pretty well without the info, just as a follow-up, but if you want to re-add it I am good. 14:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Whatever else, and whatever the "true" numbers for public opinion, it does not advance the content discussion to treat people who agree with the page subject as "idiots". --Tryptofish (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

It also does not comport with WP:CIVIL. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I have re-added the information, including the Pew poll. However, because it is the later study, and because the Gallup poll was tied to other information in a compound sentence, I added it after the Gallup poll. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia and Wikipedians in general do not support pseudoscience in the encyclopedia. These articles on pseudoscientific beliefs have to be discounted and are not given equal weight by Wikipedia policy. They are by definition WP:FRINGE views no different than a belief in mental telepathy or a flat earth, they are nonsense. This article is about nonsense, people believe it, so what? People believe that bigfoot is real too. Those people's belief in bigfoot doesn't change the fact that it is nonsense one bit. Lipsquid (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

What point are you trying to make here? Do you have a problem with the way I added this to the article? Are you advocating for the deletion of this article? Or is your assertion that YEC's status as pseudoscience exempts you from WP:CIVIL and gives you the right to call other editors "idiots"? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The Gallup poll is flawed, I sent you an academic study of why it was flawed, I sent you another poll that was not flawed that still showed very substantial support for YEC, yet not as high as the Gallup, so you add the Gallup back first anyway. Speaks for itself as to how much you care about good encyclopedic data. Lipsquid (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Acdixon and I probably have diametrically opposite views about YEC, but my experience has always been that he cares very much about improving Wikipedia. Would it be better to delete the Gallup data and leave the Pew data? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, I didn't "re-add" the Gallup poll. It was already in the article. Since it was linked to the quote from The Sunday Independent as part of a compound sentence (again, owing to a long-over discussion) I didn't see a way to make the prose read well without placing the Pew poll second. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:40, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

You cited the Gallup Poll again instead of trying to get rid of the poll. You only needed the Pew poll to support your sentence, which showed very substantial support, and I have no problem with your sentence and don't doubt the veracity of significant support in society. My problem remains the Gallup poll which is what got the article locked in the first place. 46% of Americans are not YECs, that is stupid. When I saw it, I knew it has to be wrong, so I looked to verify the poll and found a bunch of sites including academic ones pointing out the flaws in the study. Lipsquid (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

As I said, the poll is tied to the quote from The Sunday Independent: "there are plenty of Americans ready to embrace Ham and support his museum". The author of that article cited the Gallup poll – regardless of its flaws – in support of his statement. You can't just take it out or it would look as though the SI author only cited fundraising success in support of his statement, which is not accurate. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Does this: [16] help? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Switch it to using the Pew Poll and I have no problem at all. I have seen no criticism of the Pew Poll putting YECs at 35% of the US population and that seems to match up well to the reported number of evangelicals in general. I doubt any of you actually believe 46% of the US population are YECs. Look at the wording of the poll, ignore the academic criticism. Does it look like neutral wording? Does it pass your own sniff test? Lipsquid (talk) 21:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

In this edit: [17], I removed the Gallup number. Does that address your concerns? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

It is better, but still says "Gallup Poll says ....." just change it to "Pew poll says ....". If we know a poll is flawed, we should not use it. No one is saying to remove the details or screaming to delete "substantial support", just use a different poll and I even gave you one that certainly doesn't help my own POV, but is scientifically a better poll. Use the better poll and you can say what ever you like. I already said I totally believe YEC has substantial support in the US and 35% seems certainly within the real of reason. Lipsquid (talk) 21:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

But how then would we deal with the private funding cited by the Sunday Independent? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

That article is behind a paywall and what is visible does not say Gallup. That source needs to be tagged as '(subscription required)' and ideally should be replaced by a free source. Lipsquid (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Plus I am sure you can find a better source that a newspaper in South Africa that requires a subscription to view regarding the popularity of the creation museum. Lipsquid (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

If you have such a source, by all means tell us about it. But, regardless of where it was published, it is still an RS, and the fact that it is a non-local source makes it stronger, as independent of the subject. And it talks about the page subject, in terms of how the museum nonetheless has a lot of popular support, and how it has this large dollar amount of private financial support. With or without such a tag, it remains reasonable to cite it in that regard. So, if we do, how do we report on the private funding without also mentioning the poll? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't waste my time asking if you don't care about my response. I am actually pretty easy to work with when people are logical and reasonable themselves. Lipsquid (talk) 22:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

So I am illogical and unreasonable? You did not address what I was asking you. Both I and Acdixon have patiently explained to you that the source, which is indeed a reliable source, bases what it says on two things: the financial figures and the Gallup poll. When asked how to write it based on the financial figures but leaving out the poll, you changed the subject to the newspaper supposedly being a problem because it was written by someone from Africa, and because of WP:PAYWALL. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Here's a source that speaks directly on the popularity of the museum: "“Young Earth creationism holds sway in fundamentalism and in a good part of evangelicalism,” said William Trollinger. But it was popularized among Christians in 1961 with the publication of “The Genesis Flood” by the late Henry Morris and by John Whitcomb, who attended Tuesday’s ribbon-cutting." -- I'd be curious to know what percent of U.S. population is Christian fundamentalist, and, separately, evangelical? We could go from there. Cited via: A flagship for a biblical worldview, The Washington Post, 8 July 2016. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems to me that the Independent source is primarily about the museum, whereas this Post source is primarily about a different facility, and only mentions the museum in passing. I see that as a potential problem in using the Post source to support a statement about the museum's popularity. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it can be used for the statement on YEC beliefs (not necessarily about the museum). Still applicable, since that's was the poll was on that's being discussed. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, if it's directed at YEC, I think it would be good to add it, as opposed to replacing the other source with it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

There is a Pew poll that puts YECs at 35% and Evangelicals are 25.4% and all Protestants are at 40.1% [18] There is another Pew poll that says 57% of Evangelicals are YEC. Last chart at [19] 20.8% of US population is Catholic and 29% of Catholics are YECs, last page [20] 22% of Americans are unaffiliated but religious and 15% of them are YECs. These numbers all seem to pass the sniff consistency test and match up well with 35% of US population being YECs. Lipsquid (talk) 23:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

4th para in the lead

I adjusted the fourth para of the lead to read:

• The museum is controversial and has received much commentary from cultural observers and museum community. Scholars of museum studies, like Gretchen Jennings, have said that creationist exhibitions lack "valid connection with current worldwide thinking on their chosen discipline", and do not fit the definitions of a museum "which have to do with human knowledge and experience".

References

An earlier version had:

• Both supporters and opponents of the museum have generally praised the aesthetic quality of its displays, but some have noted significant discrepancies between the museum's models and presentations and the geological and fossil record. Scholars of museum studies, like Gretchen Jennings, have said that creationist exhibitions lack "valid connection with current worldwide thinking on their chosen discipline", and do not fit the definitions of a museum "which have to do with human knowledge and experience".

References

The first one is more reflective of the article text and sources per WP:Due; the coverage I saw focuses on the controversial, unscientific nature of the Museum's exhibits, mentioning that they are well crafted either in passing or in relation to the concern that their high tech nature could be misleading. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't have access to Kelly and Hoerl right now, but I can check it later. Ars Technica says of the aesthetics of the CM's displays:

"First off, I must confess that I found the place very slick. They evidently got a good graphic design team to put together the displays, and the animatronics and vignettes were well done. The museum boasts that it had an ex-Universal Studios executive work on the presentation, and it's on a par with the better modern museums I've been to."

As nearly as I can tell, the reviewer expressed no direct concerns about the technology misleading anyone. I can't read all of the Trollingers' book in the Google preview, but I also saw no such concerns expressed by them in what I could read this morning. If someone points one out, so be it. Krauss has expressed such concerns; I'll give you that one. I think, given the wide variety of folks who have expressed agreement regarding the quality of the museum's displays (and how difficult it is to get anyone to agree on anything about the museum) it merits mention in the lead. If you want to reword what was there, we can try to find wording that works for everyone, but I feel this is a strong enough point to include. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 11:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty much OK with the change that K.e.coffman made. I've always found "have generally praised the aesthetic quality", and "but some have noted" to veer towards WP:WEASEL words. I read the source material as going more in the direction of many noting the discrepancies and relatively few arguing that aesthetic appeal counteracts that. It would be better to describe these sources more specifically in the Criticism section. I'll support including favorable critical reviews there. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Concur with Tryptofish. Further, the original Ars Technica quote looked cherry-picked to focus on the praise only. To put it in context, here's what follows:

"First off, I must confess that I found the place very slick. They evidently got a good graphic design team to put together the displays, and the animatronics and vignettes were well done. The museum boasts that it had an ex-Universal Studios executive work on the presentation, and it's on a par with the better modern museums I've been to.

"The message, on the other hand, I can't agree with. Designed for a fundamentalist Christian crowd, the Creation Museum is no friend to those who do not hold to its creationist tenets. Presumably to avoid labels of anti-Semitism, the museum takes it easy on Judaism. So far, no surprises. But then we get to its handling of the science and truly step through the looking glass." Etc.

The author uses the "slick displays" language to contrast it ("on the other hand") with the unscientific message of the museum. The rest of the article is a critique on this latter aspect. So it's about 10% praise (if it can be called that) vs 90% criticism. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

But the fact is, the praise exists. There is more than enough criticism of the content already in the article for the reader to understand that the content is not generally accepted, but it is not undue to acknowledge that, despite a good deal of disagreement with the museum's message, there is a surprisingly wide agreement regarding the impressiveness and quality of the displays themselves. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

The praise (such as it is) needs to be put in context, per WP:Due. This is what I did with the Ars Technica quote, by expanding it:

• Jonathan Gitlin, reviewing the museum for Ars Technica in 2007, said the museum's displays were "on a par with the better modern museums I've been to". He added that the museum was "designed for a fundamentalist Christian crowd" and was "no friend to those who do not hold to its creationist tenets", also containing "what can only be described as a house of horrors about the dangers of abortion and drugs and the devil's music".

Otherwise, the AT quote looks cherry-picked (as I mentioned, the "praise" is 10% of the AT article). The praise does not belong in the lead, again, per WP:Due, as the original 4th para in the lead was not in line with the content provided in the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps this would be clearer if the reactions in question were grouped together instead of spread throughout the article. Consider a paragraph such as the following:

Patrick Marsh, who designed the Jaws and King Kong attractions at Universal Studios Florida, led the design of the exhibits for the Creation Museum. Both supporters and opponents have generally praised the aesthetic quality of the displays. Although opposed to the museum's message, Ars Technica's Jonathan Gitlin said the museum's displays were "on a par with the better modern museums I've been to", and Lawrence Krauss said exhibits were comparable to those of "very fancy natural history museum". Krauss further wrote that he would give the museum "a 4 for technology" on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being best. While noting that the museum's premise contradicted scientific consensus, The Kentucky Post editorial board said that, "[AiG] has built a state-of-the-art museum complete with animated dinosaurs, the latest in video technology, handsomely landscaped grounds and a large paid staff." Kelly and Hoerl described the museum's interactive Noah exhibit as "remarkable", noting: "Noah is imbued with human affect and individuality, including complex physical features and detailed bodily movements; his speech patterns, facial expressions, and bodily gestures are in near-perfect sync with his eye, mouth, and head movements; and his hair, skin tone, and musculature closely imitates real human features." Trollinger and Trollinger called the museum "an impressive and sophisticated visual argument on behalf of young Earth creationism and a highly politicized fundamentalism".

This shows that the Ars Technica quote is not cherry-picked; it is simply on-topic with the paragraph which contains it, which is about the quality of the museum's displays. Every statement here is (or has been in the recent past) part of the article, cited to a reliable source. The Phelps bit ("Daniel Phelps noted that some of the museum's dinosaur models reflected an incorrect or obsolete understanding of their physical appearance, including an Iguanodon whose skin texture differed from that indicated by the fossil record, an "outdated tail-dragging" Tyrannosaurus, and a cycad tree that looked like a "giant pineapple") could also be restored as part of this paragraph, along with a representative quote about scientists concerns that the quality of the displays might mislead visitors regarding what science shows. Both of those thoughts would be similarly on-topic. This paragraph could go either in the Collection or Reactions section. It also shows how a wide variety of sources have commented on the aesthetic quality of the displays, which to me makes the case that it is not given undue weight by appearing in the lead. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:43, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Setting aside the lead for a moment, I think that the first sentence of the paragraph you put here is entirely appropriate for the Collection section, and I support restoring it. I'm uncomfortable with the second sentence, because it seems to me to oversimplify the way many of the sources are kind of begrudging about the aesthetic aspects. On the other hand, I would separate the sentence about Patrick Marsh from what comes after the second sentence, the rest of which clearly belongs in the Reviews section, and that could very appropriately be expanded the ways that you just described. I agree with you that favorable commentary about the aesthetic aspects should be given due weight, but I also think that sources that give mixed reviews should be presented as having criticisms as well. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I would be okay with this version of the content (for the body of the article, placed where appropriate, but not necessarily in the lead):

Patrick Marsh, who designed the Jaws and King Kong attractions at Universal Studios Florida, led the design of the exhibits for the Creation Museum. Both supporters and opponents have generally praised the aesthetic quality of the displays. Jonathan Gitlin, reviewing the museum for Ars Technica in 2007, said the museum's displays were "slick" and "on a par with the better modern museums I've been to". He added that the museum was "designed for a fundamentalist Christian crowd" and was "no friend to those who do not hold to its creationist tenets", also containing "what can only be described as a house of horrors about the dangers of abortion and drugs and the devil's music". Krauss further wrote that he would give the museum "a 4 for technology" on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being best. While noting that the museum's premise contradicted scientific consensus, The Kentucky Post editorial board said that, "[AiG] has built a state-of-the-art museum complete with animated dinosaurs, the latest in video technology, handsomely landscaped grounds and a large paid staff." Trollinger and Trollinger called the museum "an impressive and sophisticated visual argument on behalf of young Earth creationism and a highly politicized fundamentalism".

Further to what Tryptofish said, I'm providing the fuller AT quote (the version that is currently in the article + the addition of "slick"). I took out the content about the Noah display, as the quote was extensive and it did not appear to provide value (at least to me). Perhaps it could be shortened and/or paraphrased.

Separately, I wouldn't necessarily see value in restoring "Daniel Phelps noted that some of the museum's dinosaur models reflected an incorrect or obsolete understanding of their physical appearance..." as it appears to be intricate detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

If we are all in agreement about restoring the bit about Patrick Marsh, I will re-add that. (I'm an admin and can edit the article, even at its current level of protection, although I won't without consensus.)

Regarding Typtofish's assertion that the statement "seems to me to oversimplify the way many of the sources are kind of begrudging about the aesthetic aspects", perhaps the statement could be refactored to avoid the word "praise". Something like, "Both supporters and opponents generally agree that the museum's displays are of similar quality to other modern museums."

Regarding Noah, what about the following shorter version? "Kelly and Hoerl described the museum's interactive Noah exhibit as "remarkable", noting its detailed physical features and well-synchronized speech, gestures, and facial expressions."

Finally, I would not have a problem with including AT's use of "slick", but I think the longer version of the AT quote veers too far off topic. Again, this paragraph is on the topic of the displays and their quality, not the message of the museum, which is discussed in detail elsewhere. In K.e.'s version above, the longest quote in the paragraph is the AT quote that discusses the museum's message. The second part of the AT quote ("house of horrors") would be quite at home in the second paragraph of the "Visitor experience" section, which details the area of the museum Gitlin is describing. In fact, I still contend that the article is more coherent with criticism discussed in the same location of the visitor experience section that it deals with than grouped loosely into a Reactions section. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I continue to think that the sentence about Patrick Marsh should be put, by itself, in the Collection section (yes, it's fine with me if you go ahead), whereas anything else should go under Reviews. And I think "Both supporters and opponents generally agree that the museum's displays are of similar quality to other modern museums" is a step in the wrong direction, arguably even worse than the previous version. I could go along with: "Both supporters and opponents have generally praised the aesthetic quality of the displays." That's an unambiguously factual statement, minus any attempt to generalize from the individual reviews. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Not sure why you feel the proposed sentence is a step in the wrong direction, but if I had known that dropping "generally" is all it would have taken to settle that part, I'd have done it a long time ago. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, it only occurred to me just now. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that would work: "Kelly and Hoerl described the museum's interactive Noah exhibit as "remarkable", noting its detailed physical features and well-synchronized speech, gestures, and facial expressions." K.e.coffman (talk) 02:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, it seems we're getting somewhere. I've re-added the mention the mention of Patrick Marsh, per this discussion. Incorporating other suggested changes, the paragraph on displays would look like this:

Both supporters and opponents have praised the aesthetic quality of the displays. Although opposed to the museum's message, Ars Technica's Jonathan Gitlin said the museum's displays were "slick" and "on a par with the better modern museums I've been to", and Lawrence Krauss said its exhibits were comparable to those of "very fancy natural history museum". Krauss further wrote that he would give the museum "a 4 for technology" on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being best. While noting that the museum's premise contradicted scientific consensus, The Kentucky Post editorial board said that, "[AiG] has built a state-of-the-art museum complete with animated dinosaurs, the latest in video technology, handsomely landscaped grounds and a large paid staff." Kelly and Hoerl described the museum's interactive Noah exhibit as "remarkable", noting its detailed physical features and well-synchronized speech, gestures, and facial expressions. Trollinger and Trollinger called the museum "an impressive and sophisticated visual argument on behalf of young Earth creationism and a highly politicized fundamentalism".

How does that strike everyone? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if it might be misleading to only quote Krauss on that one number, without also making clear his objections? Maybe it could work with this paragraph as one paragraph of the Reviews, and negative reviews in other paragraphs. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, your second sentence follows my logic. Again, the intent is to write a paragraph that focuses primarily on the quality of the displays. There are many more paragraphs in the article that focus on the message of the museum. I also included the brief qualifying statement that both Gitlin and Krauss opposed the museum's message to try and alleviate any concerns that I am misrepresenting their overall assessments of the museum. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Again, this conversation is nearing a week with no commentary. Unless there are objections, I am going to add the paragraph following the latest out-dent to the Reviews section. I don't see a really great place to put it – again, I think the better idea is to move critical reviews out of this section and nearer the aspects of the museum that they address – but I'm thinking about moving the Trollingers' quote that begins the second paragraph under Reviews to the end of the first paragraph, then making the proposed paragraph above into the second paragraph of Reviews, since there is a good bit of overlap between the content of the proposed paragraph and the current second paragraph under Reviews, as currently constituted. The quotes from Krauss and Kelly and Hoerl will be moved, obviously, from their present places in the article, and the Kentucky Post quote will be reintroduced after having been deleted in a previous edit. I still think the mention of critical praise for the aesthetic quality of the displays should be restored in the lead, but we'll tackle that after we finish talking about this paragraph in the body. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Lawrence Krauss has an incredibly negative, and well documented, opinion of the Creation Museum and any positive quotes he made in article would need to also include his negative commentary. I suspect the same if true of the ARS Technica article since it is a science and computing web site, but would have to see the article and the author before having an opinion. You definitely are not going to be able to cherrypick Krauss nice try though. This is the actual quote "Awarding marks out of five, "I'd give it a four for technology, five for propaganda. As for content, I'd give it a negative five," he said. Lipsquid (talk) 16:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Does anybody actually read the preceding discussions before reacting to these drafts? I've addressed this cherry-picking complaint numerous times already. The article already contains several negative reactions from Krauss. No reader is going to leave with the impression that he is a fan of the museum or its message. In fact, the draft proposed makes it clear that neither Ars nor Krauss support the museum's message. Both have, however, praised the aesthetic quality of the displays despite their other (duly noted) objections. This is a paragraph intended to address that one subject – that both proponents and opponents agree that the museum's displays are high quality, despite differing on the message they convey. It is not cherry picking to take only the comments relative to that subject for this one paragraph. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I missed that there was a proposal on the table. The full AT quote is as follows:

• Jonathan Gitlin, reviewing the museum for Ars Technica in 2007, said the museum's displays were "slick" and "on a par with the better modern museums I've been to". He added that the museum was "designed for a fundamentalist Christian crowd" and was "no friend to those who do not hold to its creationist tenets", also containing "what can only be described as a house of horrors about the dangers of abortion and drugs and the devil's music".

Yes, the Krauss quote looks cherry picked as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

If you can't let the source finish a complete sentence without paraphrasing, it is definitely cherry picked. If you want to use those sources, it is not a problem. They still convey everything you are asking for about aesthetic quality by using the FULL quotes which have both been added here for you.

• "Awarding marks out of five, "I'd give it a four for technology, five for propaganda. As for content, I'd give it a negative five," he said. - Lawrence Krauss
  • Jonathan Gitlin, reviewing the museum for Ars Technica in 2007, said the museum's displays were "slick" and "on a par with the better modern museums I've been to". He added that the museum was "designed for a fundamentalist Christian crowd" and was "no friend to those who do not hold to its creationist tenets", also containing "what can only be described as a house of horrors about the dangers of abortion and drugs and the devil's music".

I have no problem with you using full quotes to convey the great aesthetics of the museum. Lipsquid (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Images

A lot of the images are being purged from the page, and I'm letting editors know that I intend to revert that. This isn't a question, as claimed in one edit summary, of making the page look like a promotional brochure. It's a question of the page being about a museum. If one considers pages about other museums (museums that some editors may consider to be more respectable), one will see that they are typically heavily illustrated. And that is because they display visual material, so it is encyclopedic to show this visual content to our readers. That does not mean that those other pages are promotional. Deleting the visual media from this page because editors dislike the museum is POV. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree with this reasoning. I kept the images of the "scientific" displays, but pruned the images that provide no visual commentary to the text such as (a) diorama of Cain and Abel (one diorama of a biblical scene already provided, and in the same section); (b) View inside the Noah's ark (no intrinsic value in showing it); (c) collection of butterflies; (d) image of Tower of Babel exhibit in the Criticism section (off-topic). The images kept provide the idea of the museum without creating an image overload. I would be interested in hearing what others have to say.

Here's the versions before and after. I believe the informative value has been preserved, without excessive (IMO) images. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

That's why I posted in talk before making the edit (hint). What part(s) of what I said do you disagree with? I'm not sure how you can define "scientific" (even in quotes to denote irony) precisely enough to use as a criterion. Please expand on what you mean by "that provide no visual commentary in the text". What exactly does that mean here? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

For example, images removed:

Butterflies

Butterflies and moths in "Dr. Crawley's Insectarium"

-- pretty picture, but begs the question -- so what?

That is obvious as to which furthers the goals of an encyclopedia. Lipsquid (talk) 22:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Both of those comments are so non-specific in their reasoning as to amount to "I don't like it." No other image on the page illustrates a display in which an actual collection of real biological specimens is present. Without this image, readers would be led to think that all of the displays are dioramas or dinosaur skeletons. And it is very useful to reiterate what the text says (said?) about it being called "Dr. Crawley". It's remarkable how unlike a more traditional museum that is. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the commentary included in the article points out that the Creation Museum was the "weirdest museum ever" (or something to this effect) since the vast majority of its exhibits were manufactured for it. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't feel like your reply really engaged with what I said. All you did was underline your belief (that I, personally, share) that the museum is weird. That's a reasonable opinion, but it does not in any way reflect on what I said. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

That the museum is weird is not "my personal belief"; that is what the sources say and is reflected in the article:

Because many of the articles on display at the Creation Museum are manufactured, the Guardian called it "quite possibly ... one of the weirdest museums in the world". Krauss stated that "[On a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being best], I'd give [the museum] a 4 for technology", but added he'd also give it "5 for propaganda" and "As for content, I'd give it a negative 5."

References

K.e.coffman (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I get it, that the preponderance of sources agree about its weirdness, and I did not mean that you were doing original research. It can be widely recognized as true, and simultaneously be something that you (and I) agree with. And you still have not engaged with the rest of what I said. Please don't make me have to repeat myself, and please answer what I said. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• What's needed is a secondary source to give due weight to the mainstream view: Lovan, Dylan (12 July 2016). "Creationist museum aims at wider audience". www.daytondailynews.com. Retrieved 24 July 2016. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) or * Lovan, Dylan (24 July 2016). "Ky. creationist museum aims at wider audience". KSL.com. Associated Press. Retrieved 24 July 2016. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) points out that "A life-sized animatronic professor who appears to be working in a research lab tells visitors the insects are too complex and varied to have evolved over millions of years", and a mainstream view is given that "the quality of information is worthless, which makes the `museum' nothing more than an expensive way to confuse and indoctrinate children." Clearly the purpose of the moths/butterfly cases is a fringe pseudoscientific presentation of the design argument, so the caption should show that. . . . dave souza, talk 21:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I think that's very useful information to include. To give it in adequate detail, I'd be more inclined to put it in the text, rather than trying to cram it into the image caption. I'd like to put the additional information about Dr. C in the Collection section, and the criticisms in the Criticism section. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Will leave it with you, but segregation into "criticism" sections risks undue weight through WP:STRUCTURE issues. At the least, a caption should make it clear that the insects are being used to promote the religious design argument. . . `dave souza, talk

Also, it would be educational to point to appearance of bright coloured design arising from Aposematism and Batesian mimicry . . . . dave souza, talk 21:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Educational indeed! One might wonder if those were beneficial mutations that became a defense mechanism. 22:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Dioramas

Cain and Abel

A display named "Working the Ground"

-- two similar images in the same section; again -- so what? One image of this nature per section is plenty.

So your reasoning leads to deleting both of them? By what you just said here, I would have thought you would have deleted one and retained the other. How do you reconcile "One image of this nature per section" with having zero? And what exactly would be wrong with having two? Be specific. And what about the fact that the text discusses Biblical displays including Cain and Abel? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Correct, as I was looking at images, I relocated the image from the Background section, where it was out of place, to this section, which necessitated the removal of the diorama image. Image moved was this one:

A wrecking ball labeled "millions of years" smashing the brick foundation of a church in representation of the abandonment of scripture in the modern world.

-- it's more representative of the content provided and has an explanatory caption. The Cain and Abel scene is only mentioned in passing.

K.e.coffman (talk) 05:20, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

You did not answer my request for a specific explanation about why there could not be two images instead of one. You also did not deal with the fact that the wrecking ball image shows what could be considered a sort of "editorial", whereas the other two images show what is purported to be depictions of biblical scenes. Those are two different things. The expression of opinion (that science is a wrecking ball destroying the church) is about ideology, and thus is quite relevant to the Background section, where the reasoning behind creating the museum is discussed. On the other hand, the biblical scenes illustrate what the text in this section describes about displays of biblical stories. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Two images in the background section looked crowded. I would be okay with moving the wrecking ball back to Background, if it's the only image there -- I don't believe the image of Ken Ham is necessary. In the Visitor experience section, the wrecking ball image could be replaced with this one, to go along with the quote on the "room of horrors":

Or this one, because it illustrates the 7Cs concept that the museum is centered on:

-- these images are much more informative then the dioramas of the biblical scenes.

K.e.coffman (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think those images are well worth considering. But again, you have not engaged with what I originally said. Please engage with what I said, not about background, but about the section of the page where the diorama images had been. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Off-topic

Part of the Tower of Babel exhibit

-- off-topic in the Criticism section

It could be moved to another section, but it's not really off-topic, since it is the type of thing that critics comment about. Part of the reason for it being there is to space images out, rather than to cluster them together. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

This image does not tell the readers anything. I replaced it with this image:

File:Creation Museum 8.png

The museum promotes an erroneous belief that all dinosaurs were vegetarians in its display "What did dinosaurs eat?"

-- this is both more interesting and more informative.

K.e.coffman (talk) 05:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Here, I am more in agreement with you, in that the dinosaur image is clearly more relevant to the text that it accompanies. Perhaps with some rearrangement, the Babel image could go near the text in the earlier section that mentions it, but this one is not so big an issue for me. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Compare with images kept:

Dinosaurs

"Ebenezer", the Allosaurus skeleton represents the AiG's mission to "take the dinosaurs back" [from the evolutionists].

-- provides context as to the goals of the museum

Mt St Helens

File:Creation Museum 9.png

A display purporting that evidence from Mount St. Helens supports young Earth creationism

-- provides context on the message the museum promotes

References

Discussion

Does this help clarify my reasoning? K.e.coffman (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Taken together, it looks to me like your selection of images creates a sort of editorial narrative about how the Museum is about this pseudoscientific view of the world, while rejecting anything that does not directly make that point, and in particular, rejecting anything that gives an aesthetic feel for what the displays are like. That strikes me as subtly POV. But as I said at the top of this discussion, this is a page that is about a museum that displays visual media (however much you and I might personally disagree with the messages conveyed by that media). As such, it is encyclopedic to provide a significant amount of visual information along with the text of the page. I suspect we would not be having these discussions about images on a page about a more conventional museum. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, "editorial narrative about how the Museum is about this pseudoscientific view of the world" is what the article text covers, reflective of sources. I don't see anything wrong with this, since the museum is dedicated to pseudoscience. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Then I'll tell you what's wrong with it. You are partly correct, but you are making an error in reducing the entire topic area to that. In so doing, you are trying to create a POV editorial about the museum, instead of an encyclopedia article. As I said, any article about any museum is going to also be about visual media. It is encyclopedic to show what those visual displays look like. It is POV to only select the subset of images that one feels make a case against the museum. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe that NPOV applies, since This is what the sources say. As I commented above, "weird museum" was attributed to my personal beliefs. In fact, this is what the current article text says. How is that POV? K.e.coffman (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, NPOV always applies! Yes, WP:Fringe also applies here, too. But you have not engaged with what I have been saying about museums and visual media. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

The images should be editorial in nature, with appropriate captions, to enhance readers' understanding of the topic. For those interested in seeing more, we could provide the link to Commons: Creation Museum. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, you are pretty much admitting that you want to use the images in a POV way, and you appear not to want to engage with the other, very serious points that I have made, and repeatedly asked you to respond to. Of course we should "enhance readers' understanding". But that is not the same thing as using the images to sell a POV. It also enhances readers' understanding to give them an accurate and comprehensive representation of what is inside the museum. Seriously, it is telling that you have said multiple times that you see no need for the photo of Ken Ham, but you have not raised objections to the photos of Bill Nye and Bill Maher. If you are unwilling to deal with the fact that this is a page about a museum that contains visual media, I am going to feel justified in restoring at least some of the images, and regarding any reverts that are based on NPOV-violations as disruptive.

But, that said, I appreciate the new images you brought up in this discussion, and I am very friendly to substituting them for some of the images that you deleted. Do you see a way to reach a compromise that way? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about the photos of Bill Nye and Bill Maher; they could go if needed. The Bill Maher photo is only one used in the section, so it may be worth keeping it. The Bill Nye is in a short section, so it makes it look kind of crowded. So it can go.

On the other point, I'd like to hear from others, if someone is willing to comment. I don't see the images "selling a POV" -- the images are reflective of what the sources say, no? Similar to my point on the Ars Technica (which you appear to agree on), it's about 10% praise (if it can be called that) vs 90% criticism. So the Torah image, still in the article, is representing those 10% :-).

If you have a particular suggestion to re-add an image, then I'd be open to that. My problem with these imaged started once the images were moved from the gallery into the body; they began to look crowded (which I may have commented on). I misinterpreted the original suggestion about "removing the gallery"; I did not realize it was about moving them into the body. I would have objected at that point. Perhaps restore the Gallery section? K.e.coffman (talk) 22:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

If you have not engaged with what I already said, you should not be asking me for "particular suggestion"s. I already answered that question. And it isn't that the included images sell a POV (I said that in response to you saying that the "images should be editorial in nature"), so much as the ways in which images are not included reflect an attempt to sell a POV. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

It appears that we are either not seeing eye to eye on this, or I am not understanding what is being asked of me. That's why I requested input from other editors. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I, too, would welcome other comments. But what I'm asking of you is to read what I already said, read it carefully, and respond to what I already said. You have pretty much entirely talked about issues related to POV and issues related to the fringe-iness of the museum. I am asking you to address the fact that the page is about a museum, a museum that displays visual media, stuff that is meant to be looked at. In each sub-section, I have indicated specific aspects of how each image communicates, beyond what the text does, what these displays look like. I've indicated specific ways that each image adds visual information that the other images do not provide. It's not enough for you to say that you personally think the page looks crowded. You have to explain specifically why, either the information is not relevant (and it is not enough to say that the information is not necessary because the subject is fringe-y), or that the information is conveyed just as well by the text. This isn't that difficult to understand, and I'm trying very, very hard to be patient with you. But if you just cannot answer my points meaningfully, I will have to conclude that you have conceded the argument. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Still no response? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I’m not quite sure what is being requested of me. Since the discussion appears to have stalled and other editors have not engaged in it, please feel free to submit this disagreement to Wikipedia:Third Opinion. I would abide by their recommendation. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection to you taking it to 3O if you would like to. But seriously, I have explained it repeatedly, and I cannot believe that you really do not understand what I have been saying. My conclusion is that you just do not have a satisfactory response, and if that continues to be the case, I will just go ahead and make the edits about images that I think are appropriate after the protection lifts. However, in doing so, I will take your comments into account, and try to accommodate them where I can. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Just making the edits anyway would be bad faith. This is not an article about a museum and it does not get to be treated like an article about a museum. This is an article about people who make pseudoscientific and anti-science claims and whenever the article makes an anti-science claim, we will treat it as nonsense and specifically call it out as nonsense because that is Wikipedia policy. From the top of the page:

A common objection made often by new arrivals is that the article presents ID in an unsympathetic light and that criticism of ID is too extensive or violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV). The sections of the WP:NPOV that apply directly to this article are:\

NPOV: Pseudoscience

NPOV: Undue weight

NPOV: Making necessary assumptions

NPOV: Giving "equal validity".

The contributors to the article continually strive to adhere to these to the letter.

These policies have guided the shape and content of the article, and new arrivals are strongly encouraged to become familiar with them prior to raising objections on this page or adding content to the article. Other important policies guiding the article's content are No Original Research (WP:NOR) and Cite Your Sources (WP:CITE).

Having a Neutral POV does not apply to this article as WP is not neutral to pseudoscience. Lipsquid (talk) 01:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, you have stated bluntly what K.e.coffman was dancing around. If you think I am acting in bad faith, ANI is that-a-way. You have stated very clearly that, in your estimation, WP:NPOV "does not apply to this article". Good luck with that.

I agree with you that the page subject is pseudoscience, and that Wikipedia must not present pseudoscience as though it were equal to mainstream scholarship. (And by the way, I've just come off a very lengthy ArbCom case followed by a moderated RfC about GMOs, where I was pushing back in favor of science, against POV pushers who wanted Wikipedia to treat fringe "science" as valid. I know perfectly well what nonsense is.) But showing what the displays look like does not in any way imply that the displays are correct.

You are incorrect. The CM is a museum. It just isn't a truthful museum, an intellectually honest museum. But that does not change the fact that it is "notable" by Wikipedia's criteria, and that it is based on displays of visual media. A Wikipedia page is supposed to tell our readers about it. Part of that is to present the facts in an NPOV way – and you can see me supporting on this talk page saying that it is "incorrect" and "pseudoscience". But another part is to accurately and reasonably completely show what it is, what it looks like. And it makes no sense to argue that showing in a full and encyclopedic matter what the visual media look like would mislead our readers into thinking that pseudoscience is real science.

And in fact, like K.e.coffman, you have not really explained why I am wrong about portraying the visual media. So I will ask you: how does showing what the displays look like end up treating pseudoscience as real? And why should we not show what the displays look like? --Tryptofish (talk) 01:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Telling people you will do what you want and if they don't like it, they can take it to ANI is bad faith and certainly not commentary from someone who holds sway at ArbCom. Lipsquid (talk) 03:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Well if you encounter someone doing that, let us all know about it. So I take it that your considered answer to my questions about how showing what the displays look like ends up treating pseudoscience as real, and about why we should not show what the displays look like, is similar to K.e.coffman's answer, which is to provide no answer. My interest here is to improve the page, and I like the idea of incorporating some of K.e.coffman's ideas about better images, and I am the editor who began this discussion, in order to allow other editors to reply to me. But I have to conclude that the content-based answer to my questions about encyclopedic presentation of visual information is nolo contendere. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I will contend the edit, but I think the discussion needs a cooling off period. It doesn't mean that I am backing off or retracting anything I said, I mean that arguing right now is not productive and there is no urgent need to change any of the images. Discussions that are critical of a subject does not mean the other editor is being critical of you, even if you share the views. We always need to be wary and separate the two different topics. Best! Lipsquid (talk) 22:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I believe I've been discussing the issue in good faith, outlining my position and also offering suggestions, such as removing the Bill Nye photo and / or restoring the gallery. On the other hand, comments about me "dancing around" etc have not been at a level of discourse that I'd expect on Talk pages. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

As for "dancing around", isn't it the case that you have been repeatedly arguing against image inclusion on the basis that the museum shouldn't really be portrayed here as a museum, but without coming right out to say it as bluntly or directly as Lipsquid did? And isn't it the case that, despite my repeatedly asking you very clear questions, you have not answered them? As for removing the Nye photo, you did not suggest that except as a way to respond to my observation that you were repeatedly asking to remove the Ken Ham photo and yet not saying anything about the Nye and Maher photos. You were deflecting my valid criticism that you only wanted to remove the founder of the museum but not its critics, by offering to delete a critic too.

I'll tell you what I expect on talk pages. I asked you, over and over and over again, to answer the question of why an encyclopedia article – about a museum that presents displays of visual media – should not provide our readers with a full display of what those displays look like, as opposed to just showing the minimum number of images needed to demonstrate that it is pseudoscientific. I asked you that about specific images, and I explained what information I believed they convey. And I asked those questions in very clear language. And yet you just keep saying that you do not know what I am asking you. What I expect is that, instead, you would actually engage with what I've asked you. Not pretend that you do not hear what I am asking. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I believe I have already responded, but would like to reiterate my position: The images should be editorial in nature, with appropriate captions, to enhance readers' understanding of the topic. Some of the images I took out appeared to me to "low information" images (i.e. they did not have an "editorial" caption, just "this is a butterfly collection". That it why they were removed and replaced with more appropriate images.

For those interested in seeing more, we could provide the link to Commons or reinstate the gallery. Editor Tryptopfish and I appear to differ on what should be considered a "low-information" image, but such is the nature of disagreements -- not all of them can be resolved by discussion. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

If your concerns can be addressed by providing more in the way of image captions, that's something I would be happy to work with. But – about the butterfly image, take another look at my comments in #Butterflies. I said some very specific things about what that image communicates, that other images do not, and this is a specific example of where you have yet to respond specifically to what I said. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, as long as it's clear why the image appears in a particular section (via the caption), I believe there's room for a couple of more, but not much more as it may look as what I describe as "image overload". K.e.coffman (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Still no response to what I said about the butterfly image? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I re-read the section and I don't understand what the question I should respond to was. Please bear with me and reiterate it :-). K.e.coffman (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

"No other image on the page illustrates a display in which an actual collection of real biological specimens is present. Without this image, readers would be led to think that all of the displays are dioramas or dinosaur skeletons." Do you reject that reasoning? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Aren't some of the dinosaur fossils real? In any case, yes, reinserting the butterfly display photo would be fine, accompanied by an appropriate caption.. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!! That wasn't so difficult, was it? That's all I've been asking for. (As for the fossils, please note that I said a "collection" of "specimens", as opposed to a single specimen by itself.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Dinosaur skeletons are "real biological specimens" and are no less dead than butterflies in cases. I don't get the argument. Do they put saddles on the butterflies to show people riding them? That would be notable, like the saddles on dinosaurs. A butterfly collection, without saddles of course, is not very noteworthy especially considering what this museum is actually notable for.... Lipsquid (talk) 23:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

We edit conflicted, but please see the distinction in my answer above. And as I said, without this image, readers would be led to think that all of the displays are either dioramas or dinosaur skeletons. Showing that the dinosaur skeletons are not the only real biological specimens does not in any way take away from the information that the museum is pseudoscientific, but it does present a more accurate explanation of what the museum contains. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the appropriate caption may be along the lines of: "The museum displays biological specimen, as in this [Butterfly case]. However, much of its collection was manufactured for it."

I've seen comments to the effect that that the museum wants to portray an image of a "natural history museum", but it's "the weirdest museum ever". I think the caption should reflect that, to put the image into context. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Again, this is something where I'm quite happy to work with you on it. What I would want to be careful about, however, is making sure that there is sourcing for what we say. If we do not know that these particular butterflies were manufactured instead of real specimens, then we should communicate the issue of fakery in the text instead of the image caption. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I did not mean to suggest that the butterflies were fake. Instead, my thought was about contrasting the real specimens vs the pretenses at a "natural history museum" and that many other exhibits were manufactured for it. If my suggested caption was ambiguous, then it should be clarified. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Good. I'm confident that we can make that work. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Image density on other museum pages

Perhaps the following will be helpful with regard to what I am saying about the value of using images to present visual media in museums. Here are links to other pages, about various mainstream museums:

• American Museum of Natural History
• Metropolitan Museum of Art
• Museo del Prado
• Louvre

What I want to point out is how every one of these pages includes a large number of images, and that the density of images on the page is also rather high. That does not mean that the pages are "crowded", nor that the pages are "promotional". It's just that it makes sense to show what the visual material inside each museum looks like. I recognize that those are mainstream museums, in ways that the CM is not, but that does not change the appropriateness of showing images, although of course it does require us to present the content honestly, with respect to its fringe characteristics. I hope that editors will see that what I am arguing for here is in line with those other pages, and is actually relatively modest in comparison. And I am still waiting for answers to my questions about why we should not provide such visual information here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing the links. Having looked at those, which include gallery sections, I suggest that restoring the Gallery may be a good idea to give the readers more options to view images. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I can certainly work with you on that. Perhaps Template:Multiple image would also work, and it has the advantage of providing more opportunity for an informative image caption, as well as the opportunity to match images with the text that discusses them. I think that we both agree that it is preferable to have contextual image captions (for example, to point out the pseudoscience), rather than to just have a caption that names the image. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

PS: But please also note how each of those pages does not rely entirely on galleries. They all also include numerous images in the text, often more than one image per section. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Here's an example of a gallery with editorial captions: Wehrmacht#Gallery. I believe this approach may work for this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Image suggestions

Continuing from the discussion about the butterfly image in #Discussion above, I'm proposing here some specific ideas that I have about possible ways to present images on the page, making use of Template:Multiple image. I'd like to see if these ideas, perhaps with further revisions, will have consensus.

File:Creation Museum 6.png

A collection of butterflies and moths (left) and a section of Torah scroll from Iraq that contains Genesis 4:21–10:13 (right) are examples of real specimens on display, as opposed to the animatronic "Dr. Crawley" character that accompanies the butterfly display.

The first example uses the butterfly image, and suggests a way to deal with having a more informative image caption. I would be inclined to put it in the Collection section, near where "Dr. Crawley" is mentioned.

Ken Ham, founder and executive director of Answers in Genesis (left) debated Bill Nye (right) on February 4, 2014.

The second example provides a way to remove the Ken Ham photo from the Background section without removing it from the page, and would belong in the section about the Nye debate.

File:Hamitic Hypothesis.jpg

A Tower of Babel display (left) is used to show how AiG believes humanity may have dispersed after the "confusion" at the Tower of Babel (right).

The third example provides more detail about the "Tower of Babel", and could go in the corresponding place in the Visitor experience section.

Displays presenting AIG's views of the world. Left: "7 C's in God's Eternal Plan": Creation, Corruption, Catastrophe, Confusion, Christ, Cross, Consummation. Right: A wrecking ball labeled "millions of years" smashing the brick foundation of a church in representation of the abandonment of scripture in the modern world.^[4]

And the fourth example is a way to illustrate the views of the museum. It could go perhaps in the Background section (from which other images would thus be removed), or perhaps elsewhere. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

These look a bit awkward, both because the images are of different sizes and because the combinations are not needed. I would still support a stand-alone Gallery section though. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

(Sigh, it's not easy here.) Then I suggest that you make specific proposals. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to add one more image into the body of the article per earlier discussion -- open to suggestions on which specifically. The rest of the images that were removed could go into the Gallery section, with appropriate captions. Plus some new images from Commons, as, for example, included in this thread -- also added to the Gallery. Would that work? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know whether it would work, because I don't know the specifics. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Gallery suggestions

@K.e.coffman: Given that I made very specific suggestions about images just above, I'm asking you to do likewise. You've endorsed having a gallery. I cannot evaluate how well or not well a gallery would work, without knowing the specifics: which images, what layout, what image captions.

Please show here what exactly the gallery would be. Create the proposed gallery, with the images that are to be in it, in the layout that you propose, and with the image captions that you propose. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: It's been about four days, and I would still like very much to see what you have in mind for a gallery. I'm just not able to evaluate whether or not I think it's a good idea, without really knowing what you propose. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Parking spot

Source: [21]. Parking here, while the page is locked. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: Presumably you already know this, but in light of what you just said, I want to make sure that you understand that the purpose of full protection is not for editors to go edit somewhere else and wait for un-protection to come back and resume editing as before. It is for editors to resolve disputes here, at the talk page. So please remember to continue discussions here during the protection period. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I think I've commented on the areas under discussion where I had previously been involved. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I just wanted to make sure, and I appreciate how you are working with me in these discussions. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

POV in first paragraph

In the Article's current incarnation, the first paragraph says that the Museum "promotes a pseudoscientific, young Earth creationist (YEC) explanation of the origin of the Universe based on a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative in the Bible."

I'm inclined to agree personally with the descriptor "pseudoscientific", but I also think that it's excessively biased against the Museum as a matter of partisan principle. In my opinion it would be fair to excise the part about pseudoscience. I think that readers can decide for themselves by reading the whole article what they think of the Museum's rigor, or lack of it.24.223.130.32 (talk) 22:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

This issue is also discussed in #Controversial and #"Erroneous", above. It would be best to keep discussions together. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

No, that would be false equivalence. Wikipedia is not supposed to be unbiased against ideas that have been convincingly disproven. The relevant policy is WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. Wikipedia does *not* support pseudoscience.GliderMaven (talk) 02:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree, also WP:PSCI "Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such." Lipsquid (talk) 04:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

The passage I cite isn't referenced. I think, then, that calling it pseudoscience amounts to interpreting it as such without independent evidence. It's obvious to you that it's pseudoscience; but since when are you the arbiter of all things scientific? Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, ought to be delivering information which readers can use for their own purposes, not yours. If I submit a research paper to a scientific journal, it'll be peer reviewed. In principle peer review is only to make sure that there aren't any stupid mistakes in the paper, so the Editor can decide if it's worth devoting some space to it in the Journal. In principle it's not to make sure that readers know which worldview is the One True Worldview. In practice peer review does in some instances become about keeping the Faith. Are you just one of the Faithful? If not, then attach a robust reference to the word "pseudoscience" in that passage. Keep in mind that the reference can't just be a dictionary definition of the word per se. It needs to be a source which presents an argument about the scientific validity of the Museum itself. It needs to be rigorous, scholarly, not just remarks made off-the-cuff by antagonists who happen to be respected scientists in their day jobs. The remainder of that passage also should be referenced; but, that shouldn't be too difficult, because the Museum's management openly admit to being Bible-literal young Earth creationists. They don't refer to their museum as pseudoscientific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.32 (talk) 14:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

You obviously didn't read the top of the page before posting. ID is nonsense, Wikipedia doesn't require any proof that it is nonsense. We are required to be neutral about facts relating to the museum and any associated beliefs until they propose pseudoscientific theories that contradict actual science. Then we point out their conclusions as pseudoscience, which we are REQUIRED to do by Wikipedia policy. This has been fought over many times, if you want the policy to change, you should take it to the Wikipedia admin boards. Good luck with that..... Lipsquid (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

It's been known that creationism is pseudoscience for well over a century now. So, if we relied on AIG's own crackpot statements, that would be false equivalence. If we give them equal weight, which there has been a tendency to do in this article, particularly in the lead, that's also false equivalence.GliderMaven (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

If it's commonly known, then you should have no trouble finding a rigorous source. Also, I didn't recommend citing the Museum's creationist sources. I haven't the foggiest notion where you read that. I said that as it stands the passage is an opinion, and that someone with editorial privilege should provide evidence to raise it above the level of opinion. By the way, it's one thing to understand that creationism in general tends to be bogus; it's quite another to demonstrate that the subject of this article fits the bill. Demonstrate that the Creation Museum is pseudoscientific. You can't dodge this just by saying that "everyone knows it". I think it's clear that not everyone knows it. Creationists certainly don't know it, and they're the ones who need to know why it is. You're being lazy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.32 (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

"Also, I didn't recommend citing the Museum's creationist sources. I haven't the foggiest notion where you read that." Oh I'm sorry, you said "because the Museum's management openly admit to being Bible-literal young Earth creationists. They don't refer to their museum as pseudoscientific." perhaps you have a different idea of what 'citing a source' means?GliderMaven (talk) 03:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Find a source? No one needs to, Creation science has its own section in Wikipedia's pseudoscience guidelines. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience#Creation_science

Restoring some information

I propose adding the following two paragraphs between the third and fourth paragraphs of the Background section.

In 1996, AiG petitioned the Boone County government to rezone 40 acres (0.16 km²) of land near the intersection of U.S. Route 42 and Kentucky Route 338 from agricultural to recreational use to facilitate the construction of the Creation Museum. After concerns were raised about the proposed location's proximity to Big Bone Lick State Park, an internationally known geological site, and that the inclusion of AiG's offices and mail order business as part of the museum were inappropriate for the location, the Boone County Fiscal Court voted 4–0 against the proposal. In 1998, AiG requested the rezoning of an alternate 47 acres (0.19 km²) site south of Interstate 275. The Kentucky Post reported that, "The public comments on the proposal steered clear of the religion-vs.-science debate that generated much of the opposition in 1996", but county officials again rejected the rezoning request out of concern that building public water and sewer infrastructure to support the site would attract further growth to the rural area..

The terms of all of the commissioners on the Boone County Fiscal Court expired in January 1999, and the new members of the court agreed to negotiate with AiG regarding their rezoning request. They eventually approved changing the designation from residential to public facilities, a lower-impact designation than industrial.. A group of property owners near the site sued the court and AiG, charging that fiscal court commissioners met with AiG outside the context of a public meeting and that Commissioner Robert Hay should have recused himself from the vote because he had a conflict of interest, but a judge dismissed the suit in February 2000.

I believe the significant reduction of text back in June removed some important aspects of the museum's history, including how it was initially planned for an entirely different location. The proposed paragraphs significantly reduce the detail from the article as it appeared on June 6, 2016, but restore some information that I think is of interest to the reader. If there paragraphs were adopted, I think a first-level heading – "History" – should be inserted between the second and third paragraphs of "Background"; "Opening" should be demoted to a second-level heading under History, and Attendance could remain as a second-level heading under history. The picture of Ken Ham should probably also drop further into this section. This information seems pretty non-controversial to me. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

It contains an awful lot of details that seem more like newspaper stories than an encyclopedic overview. I would want to shorten it considerably. Would you be open to such a shortening? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Concur with Tryptofish, maybe one or two sentences max. Otherwise, it reads like dated news coverage and is not helping reader's understanding of the topic. General public interest (judging by the sources) is in what the museum currently represents rather than approval history, zoning, etc, which seems like intricate detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm willing to consider shorter alternatives, but I don't see how it could be done in one or two sentences. Perhaps one (or both) of you could propose an alternative so we can see where we disagree on the importance of subject matter. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:06, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Sure, that's a very reasonable request. Here is my stab at a draft, not necessarily all that polished:

In 1996, AiG petitioned the Boone County government to rezone 40 acres (0.16 km²) of land near the intersection of U.S. Route 42 and Kentucky Route 338 from agricultural to recreational use to facilitate the construction of the Creation Museum. The Boone County Fiscal Court initially opposed the rezoning, but in 1999 newly-elected commissioners approved changing the designation of an alternative 47 acres (0.19 km²) site south of Interstate 275 to public facilities use, and allowed construction to go forward there. A lawsuit by nearby property owners was dismissed in 2000.

For me, that would be enough. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

My proposal would be not to include this level of detail. The mention of a lawsuit in particular seems like a non sequitur and appears unneeded. How about a shorter version:

• After an unsuccessful petition for rezoning in 1996, AiG received permission to develop the Creation Museum at a 47 acres (0.19 km²) site south of Interstate 275 In 1999.

K.e.coffman (talk) 02:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I could agree about the 2000 suit being dropped; usually, someone getting sued is noteworthy, but I guess it never really went anywhere. I do think the reasons for the rejection of the original rezoning request need to be mentioned, though. Of particular interest to me, and I think to others, would be the proximity to Big Bone Lick State Park, but it also needs to be clear that this was not the only factor in the decision. Working from Tryptofish's draft:

In 1996, AiG petitioned the Boone County government to rezone 40 acres (0.16 km²) of land near the intersection of U.S. Route 42 and Kentucky Route 338 from agricultural to recreational use to facilitate the construction of the Creation Museum. The Boone County Fiscal Court initially opposed the rezoning, citing concerns about the proposed location's proximity to Big Bone Lick State Park, an internationally known geological site, and appropriateness of including AiG's mail order business as part of the museum in the otherwise rural location. In 1999, newly elected commissioners approved changing the designation of an alternative 47 acres (0.19 km²) site south of Interstate 275 to public facilities use, and allowed construction to go forward there.

Better? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

It's just not compelling to include this level of detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I guess my assessment of the proper amount of detail is in between each of you. But yes, I also had mixed feelings about the lawsuit in my previous draft. How about:

In 1996, AiG petitioned the Boone County government to rezone 40 acres (0.16 km²) of land near the intersection of U.S. Route 42 and Kentucky Route 338, and adjacent to Big Bone Lick State Park, from agricultural to recreational use to facilitate the construction of the Creation Museum. The Boone County Fiscal Court initially opposed the rezoning, but in 1999 newly elected commissioners approved changing the designation of an alternative 47 acres (0.19 km²) site south of Interstate 275 to public facilities use, and allowed construction to go forward there.

--Tryptofish (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure the sources would support "adjacent". The park is about 4 miles from the originally proposed site for the museum. And I suppose I wasn't really clear about the reason for wanting to include the proximity. Folks concerned with science were upset that Big Bone Lick, an internationally known geologic site, has no "proper museum", but this museum, which contradicts the scientific understanding of the artifacts at Big Bone Lick, was going to be built nearby instead. I find that a compelling controversy. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, I see what you mean. How about:

In 1996, AiG petitioned the Boone County government to rezone 40 acres (0.16 km²) of land near the intersection of U.S. Route 42 and Kentucky Route 338 from agricultural to recreational industrial use to facilitate the construction of the Creation Museum. The Boone County Fiscal Court initially opposed the rezoning, citing in part potential conflicts with the nearby and fossil-rich Big Bone Lick State Park. In 1999 newly elected commissioners approved changing the designation of an alternative 47 acres (0.19 km²) site south of Interstate 275 to public facilities use, and allowed construction to go forward there.

--Tryptofish (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

One correction - the initial request was to change from agricultural to industrial, not recreational. The high-impact "industrial" designation was another part of the reason the request was denied. With that one change, I think this is a suitable compromise paragraph. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I made that correction. I'd say at this point that I would be happy to go with this version after the full protection is over. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Again, assuming all parties are good with this, I'll just go ahead and insert it, as I have admin rights and can make changes, even at the article's current level of protection, although I will only do it with clear consensus. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd say we should leave this discussion open another few days, by which time the protection will be over with. No hurry. But I fully support this version. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion-- reduces the amount of linking and intricate detail about the initial site, i.e. the general public may care that it was next to the State Park, but not the size of the plot or which interstate it was near to, or that the opposition was initially coming from the nn Fiscal Court (no article). It's sufficient to say "the county initially opposed...":

• In 1996, AiG petitioned Boone County to rezone a tract of land near the Big Bone Lick State Park from agricultural to industrial use for the construction of the Creation Museum. The county initially opposed the rezoning, citing in part potential conflicts with the fossil-rich state park. In 1999 newly elected commissioners approved the rezoning of an alternative 47 acres (0.19 km²) site south of Interstate 275 to public facilities use, and allowed construction to go forward there.

Separately, I second Tryptofish's suggestion to resume editing when the protection lifts. Otherwise, it may look like "some people are more equal than others". :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps that is better. I was having some ambivalence about all the road information, and your revision does seem to me to get down to the essential points. How about a deal? I'll support this version if you support what I've been saying about the images. Does that work? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd be OK with dropping the acreage of the original plot, but I think the reader should have some idea where it was, so I don't think we should remove the road information. Also, the Boone County Fiscal Court may not be notable in and of itself, but the fiscal court is the legislative arm of county government in Kentucky. I think it bears mention that the people's legislative representatives were the source of the opposition. Finally, I notice that you dropped the name of the state park, which doesn't make any sense to me. Not only should it be mentioned, it should be linked in this paragraph.

Regarding the quid pro quo support deal, that isn't (or shouldn't be) how Wikipedia works. I believe we should support or oppose proposals independent of each other unless they are related in content. This proposal is wholly unrelated to the photo discussion above. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

There really isn't any need to lecture me about how Wikipedia is supposed to work. I had my reasons for wanting to see what reply I would get, but I guess you've ruined that now. I'll agree with you about indicating the regulatory body. But you are incorrect about there being no link to Bone Lick: it's right there! I'm ambivalent about the acreage and the roads, and I'm going to stay undecided about that for now. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry for ruining whatever rhetorical purpose you had for your proposed support arrangement, but it definitely set off alarm bells for me. As for the link to Big Bone Lick, I clearly see it in your draft, but I missed it in K.e.'s latest version above. Literally read it multiple times and just now saw it. I was looking for it in its old location. My fault. I suppose I'll wait for others' comments regarding roads. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

It was not rhetorical. Your alarm bells notwithstanding, there is nothing so horrible about editors trying to find a way to compromise about content disputes. As for acreage and roads, I think we should include both kinds of information for the actual location, but omit both kinds for the location that never ended up being used. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, so considering the most recent discussions, I'd like to suggest the following:

In 1996, AiG petitioned Boone County to rezone a tract of land near the Big Bone Lick State Park from agricultural to industrial use for the construction of the Creation Museum. The county initially opposed the rezoning, citing in part potential conflicts with the fossil-rich state park. In 1999 newly elected commissioners approved the rezoning of an alternative 47 acres (0.19 km²) site south of Interstate 275 to public facilities use, and allowed construction to go forward there.

--Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

This looks good. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Good, thanks. I hope we can go with that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

It's better than nothing. Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)