Talk:Is Genesis History?

Recent sources removal

@1990'sguy: I initially had the impression that there remained no source to support the pseudoscience assessment, but I now see there's an existing source (the IPA statement), but which doesn't mention pseudoscience, only denial. It also doesn't mention creation science. I can't confirm immediately that the Ruse source does, as the PDF lacks OCR. Two other sources were also removed: the misformatted Sarkar & Pfeifer 2006 one, then [1]. —PaleoNeonate – 00:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Adding: You claimed in the edit summary that wikilinks to pseudoscience and creation science would be sufficient. While this would be the case in a lead summarizing the article, the article body's relevant material would be sourced. As such, the article could have a pseudoscience or scientific reception section, that would be sourced, with the lead summarizing it. Now the problem with this is that no reputable geologist or biologist discussed the movie (which is virtually unknown). Another problem could be that in such a small article, such a section may seem undue. As such we're stuck per PSCI with a short mention in the lead, but it should also be sourced somewhere. —PaleoNeonate – 01:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

This is an article about a movie, not a belief. Those sources are fine to cite on the pseudoscience or creation science articles, since they discuss pseudoscience and creation science, but since they don't say "IGH promotes pseudoscience", including them would be a WP:POINTy violation of WP:COATRACK. If we're going to say that the movie promotes pseudoscience (which I did not change), we should cite sources that say precisely that. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The reason those sources are there is because WP:PSCI says:

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.

In order to comply with that, we need to say that it's pseudoscientific. If sources that cover the movie don't talk about it (because for some reason we've twice kept an article that has no in-depth mainstream coverage at all), then, well, I guess they have to come from somewhere. It's not WP:POINTy or WP:COATRACK, it's just basic policy on how to deal with pseudoscience (combined with WP:CITE, rather than defer to those other articles).

That said, I don't actually have a strong opinion on whether the sources are included (and I didn't add them) as long as we follow PSCI with the actual content. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

You're acting as if these policies say that we need to add off-topic (and unnecessary) citations, when the policy only states that we need to mention it (whether or not the actual mention is appropriate in this specific article is a different discussion). Your WP:PSCI quote proves my argument rather than yours. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Don't know what you're arguing, but it sounds like you're saying "let's not bother with WP:CITE when we follow PSCI". All I said was that PSCI says we should call it pseudoscience, and if the sources about the movie don't call it pseudoscience, then because citing sources is a good thing, we should cite sources, since the sources are about the same thing the movie is about. Regardless, I was responding more to PN's initial comments. I just indented because the flow was weird outdented. Sorry if that added confusion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

If the statement that the movie "promotes the pseudoscience of creation science" is appropriate to add to this article of a movie and not COATRACK, we don't need to cite sources that have nothing to do at all with the movie. In other words, the cited sources do not directly show that the movie promotes pseudoscience (and actually, it would then be a WP:OR violation). Not having sources that explicitly say the movie promotes pseudoscience is not an excuse to lower our standards. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH maybe, not WP:OR (actually, it could be OR without providing sources). In relation to synthesis however, PSCI explicitely allows to specify when a view is pseudoscience (and it's about the view or practice, so it doesn't have to be explicitly about this movie). —PaleoNeonate – 20:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Adding: here is a troubling pattern: [2], [3]; [4], [5] - and we're here again wasting everyone's time against the status quo... —PaleoNeonate – 20:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

It's an article about a movie that promotes a pseudoscientific claim. Your relentless attempts to remove references to the fact that "creation science" is bullshit is a real serious problem here. Guy (Help!) 20:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

"Creation science" is nothing more or less than the search for better ways to understand the creation of the world, and I expect you are well aware of that fact. You would do well to respect that pursuit even if you're not personally in favor of it. Even working under the hypothesis that macroevolution is true, people who believe the world created itself are unlikely to abandon that belief just because someone publishes material promoting creation, or because someone else fails to use bullying tactics in the attempt to discredit creationists, so what's the worry? 2600:1700:D7F0:85B0:FFFA:91AE:BD3C:36ED (talk) 21:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

We have WP:RULES, such as WP:PSCI, which is website policy. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• I agree with 1990'sguy. We don't need to dig up sources claiming that creationism/creation science is pseudoscience unless we have a standalone statement of that (e.g. "Is Genesis History? is a 2017 American Christian film that promotes creation science. Creation science is considered pseudoscience by virtually all qualified scientists." would require sourcing because the second sentence can stand on it's own). The way we do it now, where we accurately label it in passing should not require explicit sourcing.

If some creationist comes along and decides to make a huge stink about it, well, WP:CIR blocks are a thing, and that seems a more appropriate response to someone insisting we push fringe theories than giving them the (more or less) serious treatment by sourcing the claim to "shut them up". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I also don't remember who added the extra sources. There currently is one left, but it's not about creation science. —PaleoNeonate – 20:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The existing source looks fine to me, as it supports the standalone statement that creation science is rejected by the scientific community. And to be honest, I wouldn't get bent out of shape if someone added some references just to cover their bases. I'm just saying I think it's entirely unnecessary. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I restored (and reformatted) one, another appeared too sensationalist to keep, I think. —PaleoNeonate – 20:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mhawk10: Some context above. I didn't add the sources, but I get why they're there. It's not entirely wrong, as PaleoNeonate noted above, to say there's a little bit of WP:SYNTH involved by citing two of those sources, but it's an issue that comes up from time to time when trying to reconcile WP:PSCI with an article that was kept despite insufficient sources that comply with PSCI. It isn't true that none of the three sources cited in the lead actually mention the movie, though -- the first is explicitly about the movie -- but the other two indeed are not. I don't have a strong feeling on the tag. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: You are correct. I was imprecise in my edit summary in not explicitly noting that the first source is a self-described blog, which we ordinarily don't give any weight in these sorts of things unless the person is a SME. It's run by a University biology professor whose research interests include microbiology and evolution, so I understand why one might use it in many circumstances. But the particular piece is a guest post by a “Lars Cade” who seems to be a student (it’s unclear from the short bio in the post if Cade even has a masters' degree; all it says is that “has led him to start taking college courses in preparation for a doctorate in paleontology at North Carolina State University”). I understand why we want to not give off the false impression that YEC is anything other than scientifically fringe, but using something like this seems like we’re combining a non-RS with two pieces that don’t mention the film at all in order to achieve a conclusion. And that feels awfully SYNTHy. — Mhawk10 (talk) 13:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

If we have a citation that both mentions IGH and cites the sentence that comes after, we should cite it while avoiding the other two sources that violate WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK, and are otherwise unnecessary. That's what I just did.[6] --1990'sguy (talk) 00:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Fair, though if the citation is a random blog post this moves from a synth issue to an unreliable source issue — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I would like to point out that this is a two-part statement: A) The film is about YEC; and B) YEC is pseudoscience. I don't think that merely juxtaposing those two statements together in a single sentence as the lede does creates any sort of synth, per WP:SYNTHNOTJUXTAPOSITION. As long as each claim is verifiable in a source, there's no WP:OR that is introduced simply by placing them in the same sentence.

With that being said, the claim that the film is about YEC would seem to be so obvious that it falls into WP:SKYBLUE territory and doesn't require a source (It's also in the lede, so WP:LEDECITE comes to mind). If there's a concern about sourcing here, it should only be on the "YEC is pseudoscience" part, and that's an easily sourced claim. It would also seem to be a necessary claim to keep in the lede, per WP:GEVAL. Happy (Slap me) 12:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Pseudoscience (again)

Let me make this a separate discussion from the one above, so it doesn't get lost in the recent revert war. An IP recently deleted the descriptor "pseudoscience" from the term "creation science" in the article lead. That was reverted with the rationale that the descriptor was factually accurate. A different editor removed the term again, contending that the sentence is more concise without it. That was reverted again with the contention that the wording had been discussed. I contend that all of these rationales have some basis in fact, to wit:

• Policy does require is to note the prevailing view of creation science.
• The sentence, and in fact the paragraph, reads more cleanly without the "pseudoscience" qualifier, which to me seems awkwardly added.
• The issue has been discussed previously on this talk page (here).

What I am contending is that the discussion did not result in a consensus that we must use the term "pseudoscience" in this sentence, or at all. The closer explicitly notes: "there's a strong-consensus to include the point but the editorial details need to be settled" (emphasis mine). The discussion to settle the editorial details never took place, so I am starting it now. I believe that the sentence can be made cleaner and more concise without sacrificing accuracy or due weight. An example of how would be to combine it with the sentence immediately following: "Is Genesis History? is a 2017 American Christian film that promotes creation science, which holds beliefs about about the origin of the Universe, the age of the Earth, and the common descent of all lifeforms that have been rejected by the scientific community." Much less wordy, accurate, and due weight. Would this be acceptable to both sides? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Nope, PSCI is clear on this: The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included.. I encourage you to be mindful of the discretionary sanctions on this topic, as someone who is an admin and whom we all look to, to follow policy. Jytdog (talk) 16:01, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe that the policy expressly requires us to use the term "pseudoscience". It requires us to describe it as such. If something claims to be scientific, yet it it is rejected by the scientific community, it is, by definition, pseudoscience. The word pseudoscience need not be used if the sentence provides a factually equivalent description, which is what policy requires, and the passage reads less awkwardly when we aren't trying to wedge the word "pseudoscience" in there.

To be honest, I tire of this constant appeal to discretionary sanctions. Are you contending that the existence of these sanctions means that proposals can't even be discussed? That questions about what policy does and does not require cannot be clarified? The RfC closer explicitly suggested that this discussion take place. If I have done something in violation of the sanctions or contrary to my responsibilities as an admin, then report me and let the community have its say. Otherwise, kindly assume that I am aware of the discretionary sanctions at this point. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll reply on your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 16:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• I'd be OK with fraudulent instead, if that works for you. Guy (Help!) 17:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The majority of reliable sources do not feel the need to use that descriptor, thus we shouldn't here either. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I find that most of the reliable sources that discuss creationism in any form use either the word pseudoscience or equivalent descriptors to describe it. Even as balanced an academic as Ronald Numbers does not shy away from this characterization. Do you find anything different in your list of reliable sources? Or do you simply not think that there is a consensus among academics that the rhetoric in this film is pseudoscientific? jps (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

As noted, my suggestion here is primarily stylistic. I don't think the passage reads very smoothly when we insist on jamming the word "psuedoscience" into it. I am contending that the phrase "which holds beliefs about about the origin of the Universe, the age of the Earth, and the common descent of all lifeforms that have been rejected by the scientific community" is, as you put it, an "equivalent descriptor", and thus permissable under policy, and makes the passage read more smoothly and concisely. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:52, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, as you can see below, there is some problem with your formulation which doesn't make it clear that the movie is simply making false statements, and we need to state that fact cleanly and plainly. However, this is another matter. What isn't true is that your sentence has the same meaning as the one you want to replace it with. Pseudoscience is more than just advocating for things rejected by the scientific community. It requires a certain rhetorical elevation which creation science, in particular, achieves, and things like folklore do not. jps (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

labeling it pseudoscience is an opinion, which does not align with presenting wikipedia as an unbiased source of research material. Rather, "...that have been rejected by the scientific community" is actually stating a fact. It makes the material seem immature and non-credible.Requesting it be redacted (again). 2600:1700:3544:A480:E950:E28C:2C82:E1C4 (talk) 05:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Sigh. I wish creationism were history.

No, we will not replace sourced statements by your opinion that labeling it pseudoscience is an opinion. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and not on what you think. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

"It makes the material seem immature" Because telling lies is more mature? Anything related to creationism is pseudoscience. Dimadick (talk) 12:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I have to say that (for me) either of the two recent edits work, not seeing what the issue is.Slatersteven (talk) 08:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Awkward first sentence

The first sentence currently reads:

Is Genesis History? is a 2017 American Christian film that uses the pseudoscience of creation science to promote Young Earth creationist beliefs that contradict established scientific facts regarding the origin of the Universe, the age of the Earth, and the common descent of all lifeforms.

To me, that is an awkward phrasing: "the pseudoscience of creation science" is repetitive, and since Young Earth creationism is a form of creation science, the statement that creation science is used to promote Young Earth creationism creates a weird recursive loop in my head. Would it be acceptable to rephrase it as follows?

Is Genesis History? is a 2017 American Christian film that promotes the pseudoscientific notion of Young Earth creationism, a form of creation science built on beliefs that contradict established scientific facts regarding the origin of the Universe, the age of the Earth, and the common descent of all lifeforms.

This does change the meaning slightly: the current version says that the film promotes YEC beliefs about the origin of the universe (etc), while my proposed version says that the film promotes YEC, and that YEC believes things that contradict scientific facts about (etc). The difference is slight, but if there are central YEC beliefs that are not promoted by the film, it might be significant. However, I've read the source "Digging for Truth and Coming up Empty-Handed" (Cade 2017) which calls it "the young-earth creationism (YEC) documentary-style film Is Genesis History?", so I think it would not contradict the source to say that the film promotes YEC. --bonadea contributions talk 17:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I like this re-wording. The current first sentence has, to the best of my recollection, been in place for years, and it's always felt awkward to me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• The argument against is that some YEC claims are in the realm of faith/belief/religion without getting into creation science, so are better characterized as nonscientific rather than pseudoscientific (thus YEC isn't a form of creation science but rather creation science is a common pseudoscientific approach to justify YEC claims). That's not to say the first sentence isn't awkward, though... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

  The job of that sentence seems to be to reflect the relationship between the four terms "Is Genesis History?", YEC, creation science, and pseudoscience. That is a bit much, and maybe it can be split up. But first, the relationship should be written down clearly.

  Creation science is a subset of pseudoscience and YEC, maybe even their intersection. (There is Old Earth Creationist pseudoscience, but I don't think it is called Creation Science. If it is, Creation science is not a subset of YEC.)

  So, what about "IGH?"? The Cade source just says it is about YEC and debunks a few of its pseudoscientific items. The Storm source says it is about the first chapters of Genesis. So, the subject of "IGH?" is the whole of YEC, not just the pseudoscience part of it. But Bonadea's intro "that promotes the pseudoscientific notion of Young Earth creationism" is still correct: "IGH?" does promote YEC, and YEC is a pseudoscientific notion since pseudoscience is a big part of it. I think the new sentence is definitely an improvement. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

statements not directly related to the source

I temporarily removed the following paragraph in the opening, as it is not directly supported by the reference cited. Since the citation refers to a blog, it is put in the Reception section.

• that promotes the pseudoscientific notion of Young Earth creationism, a form of creation science built on beliefs that contradict established scientific facts regarding the origin of the Universe, the age of the Earth and universe, the origin of the Solar System, and the origin and evolution of life.

Lightest (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

The lede does not need citations; the citations should be in the article itself, and the lede should summarize that. Unfortunately, the article did not say what the lede "summarizes", so you were formally correct in removing it. We need to find better sources or, if reliable sources ignored that garbage, delete the whole article as undue.

But in sum, your edits turn the article WP:PROFRINGE. This bullshit needs to be called out or not mentioned, according to WP:FRINGE. Adding positive reception by fellow pseudoscientists may be acceptable if there is also mainstream reception, but we will not have pure within-fantasy-universe sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

While the long standing version of the lede was a product of many editors flipping it back and forth until it stabilized on the version that addresses pseudoscience and how the film contradicts established scientific facts without corresponding citations in the article body, the newly substituted version supporting the claim of six days versus day-age creationism and the reasonableness of the Genesis narratives such as Adam and Eve, the fall, the global flood, and the tower of Babel aren't supported by citations in the article body either. I'm going to revert the recent removal of the FRINGE-addressing content from the long standing version and suggest that if the lead is to be re-written, it should begin with a new proposed form here on the Talk Page with ensuing editor discussion. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Special Presentation One Night Showing

• as regards whether it was clear it was a special presentation one night showing, i would respectfully disagree, so I'm going to research this more.

the entire article deserves a rewrite for prose and encyclopedic tone. maybe next month. SkidMountTubularFrame (talk)