Talk:Creation Museum/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about Creation Museum. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Toy dinosaurs

About [1], I am very strongly inclined to restore the sentence "A private collection of toy dinosaurs was donated to the museum." I don't understand the argument that it is "poorly sourced". The source is a newspaper article from what appears to be a mainstream newspaper serving the area where the museum is located. Surely, there is no reasonable doubt that the sentence is true, that the information is verifiable?

Here is why I think it is worthwhile giving one short sentence to this information. It's pretty extraordinary that any museum (except perhaps a museum of toys) would have such a collection, and particularly extraordinary that such a collection would be used to question mainstream paleontology. It says a lot about what kind of museum it is. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

My revert said -not notable and poorly sourced-. On notability, this sentence "A private collection of toy dinosaurs was donated to the museum." does not seem notable. I have no idea why it is even there, the average reader would look at the sentence and say "Who cares?". Now, I am certainly not against having information in the article about the toy dinosaur collection. Maybe it is the greatest collection on Earth, I have no idea. It just seems poorly sourced assuming that it really is "pretty extraordinary that any museum (except perhaps a museum of toys) would have such a collection, and particularly extraordinary that such a collection would be used to question mainstream paleontology". If it really is extraordinary, there should be an extraordinarily large number of reliable resources talking about it. Otherwise, it is pretty much original research. At the least, you should extend the sentence to say why it is notable. Again, really not against the toy dinosaurs, make it notable and back it up with reliable sources.Lipsquid (talk) 04:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, the fact is sourced to the Lexington Herald-Leader, so I'm not sure why you are saying it is poorly sourced or original research. That said, I've been to the museum three times and never noticed this collection, so it may be that it is not being used in any of the displays. I'm basically neutral on whether it stays or goes. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

You proved my point, it is not notable. I would keep it deleted now. Lipsquid (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

When I said that it's extraordinary, I wasn't saying that there was anything superior about the toys that would make them anything like "the greatest collection". I was saying that I would find it surprising that any such museum would put toys on display to illustrate geologic history. And I was not proposing to actually describe it as "extraordinary", just to state the facts. I'm taken by surprise to hear that the toys are apparently not on display, because an examination of the page history will show that the sentence used to be: "A private collection of toy dinosaurs and another containing 10,000 minerals are among the donated items displayed at the museum." I understand "displayed at the museum" to mean that they are on display. However, given that it now appears that the toys, although donated, are not really out on display, I no longer want to put the sentence back. I had thought that a display of them would be worth mentioning, but if they are just in storage somewhere, I'd rather not add it back. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

If you do find that the toys are on display, I have no issue with the alternative sentence: "A private collection of toy dinosaurs and another containing 10,000 minerals are among the donated items displayed at the museum." That reads well and seems more notable, assuming it is sourced. Thanks and if you do find these as actual displays, feel free to add the details back at your leisure. Lipsquid (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I found the detail to be trivial. Many attractions have sections or material aimed at young children. In a similar fashion, I’ve been objecting to including petting zoos and zip lines in the articles about AiG's activities. These additional facilities are typical at many attractions to make them more family friendly, and are not unique to AiG. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I hadn't previously understood it to have been a children-themed thing, specifically. I just thought it was strikingly weird that anyone would display toys alongside the skeletons, etc. But as I said, if we have reason to doubt that they are actually displayed, I no longer care about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed... so ridiculously trivial as to be beyond belief, this is an encyclopedia and we are in the 21st century for goodness sake. Theroadislong (talk) 22:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I thought it was a dictionary and we were in the 22nd century. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Warning

Anyone who resumes edit warring now that the lock has expired, may be blocked without any further notice. Edit warring is reverting, even once, or restoring disputed information from before the block. If you're unsure whether your edit falls under this umbrella, don't do it. Instead, raise the issue on the Talk page. I'll note two users who would be at risk if I'd made this warning before, but this warning is not directed solely at them: @Theroadislong: and @Jeffro77:.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

My apologies I assumed that as the Category:Creationist museums in the United States had been removed from Category:Pseudoscience, it was correct to restore. Theroadislong (talk) 13:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I am in no need of a 'warning', and have not made any inappropriate edits. It's not remotely clear how the only recent edit I've made on this article constitutes 'edit warring', and the edit I made was clearly explained, even if it was misunderstood by another editor. I corrected a minor nested category issue, was not aware of any recent lock, and was not involved in any 'edit dispute' that resulted in the supposed lock. (The only other edit I've ever made on this article was an unrelated minor edit a few weeks ago).--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

It just occurred to me that editors are, to a significant extent, discussing "pseudoscience" here, and there are existing ArbCom restrictions arising from the Pseudoscience case. I haven't checked, but my guess is that Discretionary Sanctions apply. I figured I should point that out, and admins may perhaps want to comment about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Fixing a nested category is 'discussing pseudoscience'??--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, no, I didn't mean simply the talk thread directly above, and I'm sorry if it sounded like that. In fact, there are explicitly pseudoscience-related discussions going on in multiple talk threads here, and of course, the nested categories do place the page subject within the area of pseudoscience. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Jeffro77:It depends on what you call fixing. "I have removed Category:Creationist museums in the United States from Category:Pseudoscience." Why did you remove it, under what authority was it removed and where was your change discussed? Those answers would probably clear the issue up. Otherwise, I would agree sanctions are in order. Lipsquid (talk) 00:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, I do see how the categories are nested to ultimately get to Pseudoscience, that doesn't really change the questions. Pointing to the Wikipedia guideline for making the change or showing it was discussed somewhere probably clears it all up. Lipsquid (talk) 00:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

No, you're entirely wrong. Categories on Wikipedia are nested. The article is already in the relevant subcategories as already explicitly explained. WP:SUBCAT states: "a page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category (supercategory) of that category". Claiming that 'sanctions are in order' for one edit that is completely in line with the relevant guidelines just because I didn't know that some other people were previously having some idiotic dispute I knew nothing about is entirely idiotic. It is blatantly dishonest of you to partially quote what I said and say 'why did you remove it' when immediately after the text you quoted, I said "The main subcategory of Category:Creation science is properly included under Category:Pseudoscience. The creation museum categories are in the appropriate subcategories related to pseudoscience." So stop trying to cause trouble.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

You are prescribing some anger to me that i do not have. I asked about what authority you had and even said that including a Wikipedia guideline would clear it up. You should stay away from difficult subjects and it still seems like you made the change without any distinct authority. Maybe this was one of the "rare cases" where it should remain in both a parent and sub-category Stop causing drive by trouble on topics you don't edit and you won't get negative feedback. Lipsquid (talk)

Whether you are 'angry' is irrelevant. Your accusation is false. I will edit whatever articles I feel like editing.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:13, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

You are overly angry and I made no accusations. I asked for an explanation. Lipsquid (talk) 01:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm certainly annoyed about the false implication of 'edit warring' by an admin and then falsely accused of 'discussing psuedoscience' (which the original editor actually explained was not intended, but you have ran with it anyway) for fixing a category in line with the relevant guidelines. I wouldn't take it as far as 'angry'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Neither of those accusers was me. I asked you to post the guideline, which you have, and I asked you where you discussed the edit. Which I assume means, it was not discussed anywhere first. People make mistakes, including admins. This page was just unlocked today over edit warring on pseudoscience and you drive by and edit the pseudoscience category, that wasn't very smart and could have been avoided by discussing it on the talk page first. Did you know? I assume not. Is there any foul? It doesn't seem so. Does your edit look bad? Yes. Is it worth discussing any more? it does not seems so, it was just bad timing. Best of luck to you! Lipsquid (talk) 01:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

One of the articles on my Watchlist of secondary importance to me needed a simple change. People make mundane changes to categories all the time. It is not necessary to discuss changes to a category just in case someone might have previously been having an unknown dispute about it. If my edit 'looks bad', that's all on the other people having the earlier dispute, not me.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

No harm, no foul. Best wishes and Happy Saturday! 01:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: Could you kindly link to the ArbCom Pseudoscience case in question? I don't follow ArbCom proceedings and would just like to be aware of what's been said there so I can keep on the right side of the consensus. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I only remembered it vaguely, so your request prompted me to actually look it up. The case decision is at: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The bottom line for this page is that Standard Discretionary Sanctions are in effect for this page. Ping Bbb23, as a matter of information. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I just added {{subst:Ds/talk notice|topic=ps|style=long}} at the top of this talk page. I think editors should feel free to add it at talk pages of other pages about AIG, etc. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

smithsonian EL

See basically done discussion here Jytdog (talk) 04:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted your edits, and here is why. I looked back at that ELN discussion, and it's more like the discussion just wound down and editors (including me) stopped watching. But I'd say that the consensus is more like making it a source to be cited on the page, rather than displaying the chart as an image on the page. And that has already been done: [2]. I do not think that it satisfies WP:DUE to take up that much space for an image that is not really about the Museum, and the Museum is the subject of this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links 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 this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.christianfaithandreason.com/june_fredandwilma.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070118215637/http://news.ninemsn.com.au:80/article.aspx?id=176926 to http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=176926

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

2013 Taxes

To explain this revert that I made: [3], I looked at the source that was cited: [4], and I'm not seeing it as supporting the text, which was "In 2013 tax filings indicated that the museum itself was losing millions of dollars per year, but was mostly kept afloat by sale of media." By my reading of the tax return, I'm just not seeing anywhere that shows millions of dollars in losses from any business sector. Am I missing something? Also, a link to something in Dropbox may not be a reliable source. Is there a secondary source such as a newspaper article that backs up the claim? --Tryptofish (talk) 02:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

yes, A link to something in someone's dropbox is absolutely unreliable. Jytdog (talk) 02:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Dropbox is irrelevant, it isn't a source, it's a file server. The (open) source is the US government's storage of that document, you can presumably download it directly, unless it's a forgery, which is highly unlikely, and easily checked.GliderMaven (talk) 04:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

But the document shows that the museum itself made ~$4.9 million on costs of over 8 million; this is a significant loss. AIG didn't, overall, make a loss though.GliderMaven (talk) 04:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Of course it is relevant - the publisher is the the most important thing we consider. Anybody could have messed with the document then published it via their dropbox. Not reliable. See the several related discussions about scribd at RSN in these search results. same exact issue and the community rejects it every time. They also generally raise the issue of WP:PRIMARY as well. It is really best to find a secondary source discussing the issue and if you can't find one, it is a sign that the issue deserves no WEIGHT in WP. See WP:UNDUE. Jytdog (talk) 04:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Dropbox isn't the publisher, it's the government, so as I said, dropbox truly is irrelevant. I'm pretty sure there's secondary sources on this as well.GliderMaven (talk) 04:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

There are two issues here. First, in the citation you used, the publisher is dropbox. If you provide a link to that file via a relevant .gov site, then yes, the government would publish that reference. (Writing that one can "presumably" download it directly from the government is not enough.) Perhaps it is available through guidestar or the like. Second, you are interpreting it to say that " the museum itself was losing millions of dollars per year, but was mostly kept afloat by sale of media." and this is not obvious on the surface. Again please read WP:OR (aka WP:PRIMARY which says: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.^[1] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. ")

Both these issues would be resolved if you cited a reliable, secondary source that discussed the return.

References

^ Any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources.

-- Jytdog (talk) 14:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Going beyond the source, I find the phrasing somewhat problematic. I suspect that very few museums of that size are self-supporting (meaning I don't know of a single one that does not require outside support), yet the millions of dollars in losses are mentioned as if the museum is failing in that regard. The funding and economics of the museum is a fair topic, but no one should expect the place to turn a profit, any more than they would expect their local natural history museum to pay for itself (mine here in Denver certainly does not). Thanks. Plazak (talk) 14:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with everything that Jytdog and Plazak have said, thank you both. I'll add that when I looked at the Dropbox material, I could not even find anywhere in the purported tax return that lists losses of "millions of dollars", including the parts that show net gains or losses after costs. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Pseudoscience/Questionable Science?

I recently visited AiG and briefly met Ken Ham and addressed how people accuse him of being all but scientific. Albeit odd and used strangely, I wouldn't venture so far as to call him or his organization pseudoscience, but rather "practitioners" of questionable science. Although evolutionist myself, he made the point (on several occasions throughout the years) he DOES use the scientific method. I just don't feel using pseudoscience in the lead is proper in labeling. Is there any other location in which this debate is being held regarding this article? Bryan C. W. (talk) 15:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

It is well sourced, and will remain, imho. -Roxy the dog. bark 15:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Just because he claims to be using the scientific method doesn't mean he is. Theories have to be falsifiable to be actually doing that, but his theories aren't, and he's point-blank admitted that in debates.GliderMaven (talk) 15:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

His claim that it's science is what makes it pseudoscience: it's a faith based rejection of science, and could legitimately be presented as purely religious. For legal reasons, creation science was invented to evade constitutional restrictions on promoting religious doctrine in public school science classes, and Ham subsequently became a prominent exponent of this presentation of religious belief as though it was science. . . dave souza, talk 15:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Like other editors responding here, I feel strongly that the word "pseudoscience" is the correct one. I think that there is abundant sourcing that indicates that the scientific consensus of mainstream evolutionary scientists is that creation science should be considered pseudoscience and not just an alternative scientific approach. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Also relevant was this very recent discussion (avoiding to copy my comment here but it would be the same): Talk:Is Genesis History?/Archive 1#Category —Paleo Neonate – 00:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough points all around - which is why I didn't go ahead and edit. Guess I was playing the (non)devils advocate for a day! :I Bryan C. W. (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

self source and undue??

Undue weight: “Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.” And, “Theories and viewpoints held by a minority should not receive as much attention as the majority view, and views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.... Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them… But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it should not be represented as the truth.”

Reliable Sources: “Questionable sources should only be used as sources for material on themselves, such as in articles about themselves”… “Questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field.”

~~Following this policy it appears quoting from AiG for information about AiG is acceptable.. --OtisDixon (talk) 02:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)~~

I've generally been pretty careful of not under-presenting AIG's perspective, but I was OK with the removal of the list of staff members [5]. I'm sure that AIG is indeed a reliable source for the fact that these persons work there, but it may not be reliable about their scientific credentials (as was quoted in a citation). But I do share the concern about due weight, because it simply is not typical to list the people who work at an organization unless there is independent sourcing that indicates that these people are of significant interest. Obviously, Ken Ham is very significant, but the long list of other people seems to me to be less so. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

::Listing 6, or 7, or even 10 names of the more than 140 people who work for AiG doesn't seem all that excessive. And those listed commonly speak and write for AiG in venues across the world. Ham is not AiG and AiG is not Ham. Those who have Doctorates acquired them from recognized institutions such as Harvard, Brown U., U. of Sydney, Ohio State U., U of S Carolina, etc. Given how hated AiG is, if they posted false information about their staff, it would be news across the internet. The fact that they employ persons with scientific doctorates ought to be of significance, given the general disbelief that they could. Facts stand for themselves in spite of how great the desire for things to be otherwise. And it seems to me that WP is about facts, not wishes. --OtisDixon (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The suggestion that it would be "news across the internet" is probably exaggerating the perceived significance of this particular venture. But aside from that, trying to make something of some staff having doctorates sounds a lot like a fallacious argument from authority. For example, Bodie Hodge was in the list and touted as having 'a doctorate', but he's a mechanical engineer which has no relevance to claims about evolution, biology or any field specific to creationist claims. Additionally, a person academically trained as a scientist can still hold theological views that conflict with their academic training, especially with the caveat that 'God can do anything so the evidence just seems a particular way'; it says nothing about the consensus view among scientists in their fields of study, nor does it indicate that those individuals are broadly respected in their chosen fields.

Also, "listing 6, or 7, or even 10 names" of staff is definitely "excessive" (i.e. misleading) if the individuals are chosen to make it appear that their credentials are representative of the credentials of the staff generally.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

::::Given the general hatred of AiG across the board, it would be big news. AiG is typically underestimated on FB, I suppose in an attempt to belittle the organization. It may seem to some to be an unimportant organization, but the Creation Museum and Ark Encounter are having global effects. 7/7/17 is the one year anniversary of the opening of Ark Encounter. They will soon provide an accurate account of attendance in order to see if they qualify for the tax refund promised by the state if they got a minimum number of attendees (I believe somewhere about 1.2 million). Preliminary counts indicate that they have far exceeded the minimum and they expect to get back a percentage of the taxes they raised in the park. ::::It is unimportant if these scientists are respected within their field, because they have no regard for the accepted views. What having degrees show is that they have the same education as every other scientists in their field, but they have chosen different interpretations of the data, and it is that which sets them apart, makes them unique and notable. The first list were speakers and writers who are a big part the face of AiG across the world. These were not the ones with the advanced degrees. Astronomer Faulkner was the first of the Doctorates. There are about another 5 or 6 who do have PhDs in their respective fields. What having Degreed scientists on the staff shows is that supporters of the ideas espoused by AiG are not uneducated, knuckle draggers. --OtisDixon (talk) 00:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Of course this is about facts and not wishes. And I have no interest in making anybody look bad, just offering my opinion about what is encyclopedic (and I did not even make the revert in question). But here is my suggestion: if these people "commonly speak and write for AiG in venues across the world", then there ought to be notice of it in independent sources. So cite those sources for what those spokespeople said, in lieu of having a staff list. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

"What having degrees show is that they have the same education as every other scientists in their field, but they have chosen different interpretations of the data"... or that they ignore data that conflicts with their religious beliefs, or that they lied when signing the 'statement of faith'... or probably any number of other possibilities. Without proper sources, it's just speculation and doesn't belong in the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

bottom line here is that there is no support for including these names and reasons have been given under several policies and guidelines including UNDUE/WEIGHT in light of the SPS and FRINGE science, as well as PROMO. Unless more compelling reasoning and sourcing are brought this is not happening. Jytdog (talk) 03:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
"What having degrees show is that they have the same education as every other scientists in their field, but they have chosen different interpretations of the data": this is precisely what they would like you to believe, but the Wikipedia article is not their PR campaign. As Jeffro already pointed out, scientists are free to believe what they like and may also not be qualified at all to interpret evidence outside of their own field. —Paleo Neonate - 03:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

We could maybe mention that AiG employs Andrew A. Snelling. One claim to fame he has was a recent dispute and lawsuit with the U.S. National Park Service. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I see no problem to mention Andrew since he seems notable enough to have an article. —Paleo Neonate - 18:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree that he could be appropriate here. Just one caveat: his bio page talks about him working for AIG, but does not mention the CM. If there is sourcing for him working specifically at the museum, then he should be added here, but if not, the AIG page would be more appropriate. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Struck sockpuppet edits, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Allenroyboy/Archive. Doug Weller talk 10:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Dinosaurs and a literal interpretation of Genesis

The lead tells me that what is on display is "based on a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative in the Bible." The next two paragraphs mention dinosaurs. There are no mentions of dinosaurs in the Bible, literal or otherwise. What is going on here?

Note, I am not arguing one way or another about creationism here. Simply asking about the logic of the words in our article. They make no sense. HiLo48 (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. The two statements, 1) the museum's literal interpretation of Genesis, and 2) that it has dinosaur displays, are both factual. Do you dispute either of them? That dinosaurs are not mentioned in the bible is perhaps the reason for having dinosaur displays, in an attempt to show that they are consistent with Genesis, even if not specifically mentioned there. Regards, Plazak (talk) 00:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

There is some argument that leviathan, referenced here Job 3:8, and behemoth, referenced here Job 40:15–24, sounds a lot like dinosaurs (some translations more than others). I don't have any sources that make that assertion handy, but I have read it before. I can track some down later if desired. {{u|zchrykng}} ^{T|C} 00:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I can confirm that this is an accepted reading among some proponents of YEC. I was in the audience when Ken Ham made remarks along these lines during an address at the Creation Museum. If you're saying something needs to be sourced, I can probably dig up something somewhere that puts it in writing, but if you are just looking for clarification of your own understanding, then perhaps you will find my anecdote helpful. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2021

This edit request to Creation Museum has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The very first sentence has a biased description: "...is a museum that promotes a pseudoscientific..." instead of what objectively should state that it provides an alternative view of origins. If you are restricting people to be exposed to just one view and thereby eliminate any independent thought or reason, that is not a very scientific way of discovery and truly better described as indoctrination. You should really revise this opening sentence, so that you don't appear unnecessarily biased and compromise your position to provide merely factual information. Unapologetic Apologetics (talk) 23:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

"Unicorn Museum" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Unicorn Museum and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 17#Unicorn Museum until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TNstingray (talk) 23:04, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

[Exceptional-1] Any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources.

[1]