Jump to content

Talk:Ken Ham/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

History, and thinking about a different way forward...

I really like what AzureCitizen laid out above, in this dif but I think it doesn't go back quite far enough.

Based on checking the history, it appeared that amazingly (!) the lead lacked an appropriate nod to WP:FRINGE until TRPoD added it here on March 14 with "His claims of the age of the earth that are counter to all scientific reports have been widely criticized and debunked". That was reverted in this dif by an IP address on March 18. TRPoD reverted and added more sources, and we were off to the races. "debunked" was objected to and replaced with "condemned" here. "condemned" was apparently felt to be too strong and was changed to "incorrect" here in an effort to avoid any judgement other than simple factual wrongness.

I think the lead absolutely needs to comply with FRINGE and scientific consensus statement needs to be given. So far the efforts to comply with FRINGE have all been "negative" statements that people are taking as being about Ham. I think we should shoot for positively stating the scientific consensus on the view (not the man). The Young Earth creationism article itself says "Young Earth creationism is contradicted by scientific evidence derived from observations made in numerous scientific disciplines. The evidence invariably supports the scientific consensus that the universe has existed for approximately 13.8 billion years and that the Earth was formed about 4.5 billion years ago, with life first appearing at least 2.5 billion years ago.[8][9]." Would you all be OK with simply replacing the current language with the statement from the Young Earth article? This depersonalizes it and makes the more "positive" approach of saying what the scientific consensus is. Acceptable? Jytdog (talk) 00:18, 6 April 2014 (note, amended this with the bold-faced language and added my name which for some reason wasn't on this proposal Jytdog (talk) 19:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC))


Support Well said. I agree with everything above. Nicholas. 107.178.45.20 (talk) 10:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Please work toward consensus. How about if we take part out: "Young Earth creationism is contradicted by scientific evidence derived from observations made in numerous scientific disciplines. The evidence invariably supports the scientific consensus, which is that the universe has existed for approximately 13.8 billion years and that the Earth was formed about 4.5 billion years ago, with life first appearing at least 2.5 billion years ago.[8][9]."? Jytdog (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Support The emendation from Jytdog above is excellent wording for use in this articles lede. Best, Purefury182 (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


Demur We need not be "Captain Obvious" The biography of Hitler does not say "His racial theories were bogus" and "He was the most evil man in history" -- we leave it to the readers to make their own judgments about people. The concept that we must or ought to show readers what to believe is contrary to the concept of an encyclopedia ab initio - and would make us more like the old Soviet Encyclopedia than many of us would find comfortable. Would we add to the LDS articles that it is "contradicted by science" and that such a religion is "incorrect"? Or likewise to Hasidism? Cheers -- if we do not add such stuff to major articles on religions,adding it to biographies where its basis is sufficiently obviously religious is not supportable. Collect (talk) 12:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Collect, the fundamental principle of Wikipedia is that we work toward consensus. Playing Dr. No is not constructive - quite the opposite. This is not about winning, but rather finding something we can all live with. Please try to work toward consensus. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually when it comes to biographies of living persons we have a policy WP:BLP which is absolute and not subject to being ignored by any local group of editors. It requires specific strong sourcing for any contentious claims in such a biography, thus using SYNTH to make assertions not made directly and explicitly by strong reliable sources is improper. And as I worked a long time with others on editing WP:CONSENSUS I have a pretty good understanding of what it can and cannot do. And if following policy is "playing Dr. No" then it is required that we do so. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
You'll see Collect there's quite a big difference between saying "Hitler was bad" or "certain religion is incorrect" and what it's being done here. You can't prove Hitler was "bad" or that any religion is "incorrect" and certainly some people would disagree with you in this regard. The age of the Earth is different, we can and indeed have proven many times that its value is around the 4.5 billions figure and it is a fact that Ham is incorrect in his assertions. We simply make this fact clear. There's no subjective moral judging going on here, it's just an assertion of a fact. Regards. Gaba (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh really? Ham clearly has a religious belief which we wish to assert in Wikipedia's voice and without a secondary reliable source making that assertion that his beliefs are "incorrect." And WP:BLP requires that we have a specific reliable source making that claim about that person. You might find such a source, but so far we do not have such a source cited. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Collect, please provide a source for your claim, that Ham understands his claims about age of the earth to not be statements about tangible reality. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Did you not read WP:BLP? It requires strong sourcing for contentious claims - it does not say that one needs strong sourcing which denies the contentious claims else one may insert the unsourced claims. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
You seem to be saying that his claims about the age of the earth are not about tangible reality - that they are something like statements about the existence of God. Please clarify - are they claims about tangible reality, or not? Please answer. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
It would be nice if you paid attention to what I wrote and not try to set up any straw man arguments. I stated that the claim as worded is a "contentious claim" per WP:BLP which requires strong reliable sourcing for the claim. And WP:BLP is a policy and not a "suggestion". Collect (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Having a sincerely held religious belief does not make you immune to being factually incorrect and we should not obscure this. As for sources, I'd say pretty much every geology book ever written is a source for Ham being incorrect. And this is far from being a "contentious claim", quite the contrary actually. Regards. Gaba (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Ham himself says that his young earth claim is incorrect according to the mainstream scientists -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
GUYS - the conversation about "incorrect" is going NOWHERE. Your arguments on both sides are not convincing each other. There is no consensus for it and it will not be stable, and the article and this discussion are going nowhere. I started this section to try to move forward. Please respond to the proposal, in a spirit of trying to reach consensus. If you want to continue the high-school pot smoking debate over "incorrect" or other negative formulations, please do it in some other section. I have proposed stable language from the main Young Earther article, which should be OK here, too. Jytdog (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Collect, I don't understand what you are trying to communicate, I am sorry. You originally seemed to be saying that Ham's claims about the age of the earth are "religious belief" and not something about tangible reality. Apparently that was not your point. Are you saying that we do not have sufficient sourcing for his claims about the age of the earth? I am trying to understand you. Jytdog (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Read my posts then -- I assert that WP:BLP requires strong reliable sourcing for any claims in a BLP. The claim thus requires specific reliable sourcing making the claim. We can not use SYNTH to say "the source says X and X implies Y therefore we can use the source to support the claim Y." So far I have not seen a reliable source which makes the strong contentious claim as made in the lead. I have pointed out that we do not use SYNTH in other biographies in the lead, which means that there is a chance that they are following the policy which is being ignored here. Now do you have a specific string reliable source for the claim:
His claim about the young age of the Earth, based on his interpretation of the Bible, is incorrect and dismissed as such by the scientific community .
Or not? We have apparently four catenated claims: 1. Ham believes that the Earth has a young age. 2. Ham's belief is based specifically on religious grounds. 3. Ham's belief is incorrect. 4. Ham's belief is dismissed by the "scientific community." Find a source with all four claims made about Ham as a person which meets WP:RS for a biography before asserting anything else. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
There is no "claim" being made, simply the assertion of an undisputable fact. And the strong reliable sourcing for that fact is every geology book you could possibly find. Regards. Gaba (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
In Wikipedia usage, a "claim" is any statement made in any article -- it has no connection with "the truth needs no sources" which is actually untrue on Wikipedia. All assertions must be sourced, and the requirements in a BLP are stringent, We can not say "well this is an obvious fact" as that is contrary to policy entirely. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Collect, this section is about an alternative proposal for the lead, TO REPLACE THE CURRENT LANGUAGE. Making arguments about the current language here is disruptive. I am hatting your comments. Please stop being disruptive. Jytdog (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Note: I had hatted off this discussion in this dif which Collect reverted in this dif. So I just created the section and left this note. Jytdog (talk) 22:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


The hatting of demurring opinions is improper on an article talk page here. That you find a civilly expressed disagreement to be "disruptive" is nicely Pythonian. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Collect, if you were actually talking about the proposal of this section, it would not have been disruptive of course. Refusing to even try to reach consensus is also disruptive. Jytdog (talk) 22:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Refusal to abide by Wikipedia policy is disruptive -- discussing policy is not only not "disruptive" it is required by WP:BLP,WP:RS,WP:NPOV andWP:CONSENSUS. Cheers and please do not use article talk pages to attack any editors,as that also is against policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Collect, I opened this section to try to gain consensus to change the language you are objecting to. You are behaving tendentiously as you are derailing my efforts to do that. And in the course of doing that, you have ignored the questions I have asked you and indeed the topic of this section altogether and have simply rehashed what you have said here many times already. Please tell me - why are you ignoring the topic of this section? (real question) Jytdog (talk) 10:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Was there a prior consensus here?

An issue that Gaba and I discussed the other day dealt with whether or not there had been a prior consensus here on Talk:Ken Ham to add material to the lede stating that the subject's claims were wrong and/or dismissed by science. Gaba politely pointed to this section here and stated in support:

"The issues began with this edit where an IP removed a sentence completely from the lead. The IP was reverted and breached the WP:3RR trying to WP:EDITWAR it back. After that an editor attempted to water down the sentence which ended up with the article having to be protected. The first thread ensued which ended up with one editor requesting the sentence to be removed, this request was denied by an administrator who said consensus should be seeked first and incidentally added that "The statement is well-cited, so it is not objectionable under our biographies of living persons policy." That prompted the second thread (the one I pointed you to) where a consensus was quickly formed 6 to 1 to introduce the current version of the sentence. Given that, I requested the sentence be added which a second administrator did. I evaluated consensus based on the 6 to 1 straw poll and obviously and administrator agreed which is why he added the edit. That is the explanation for the consensus version currently up." (by Gaba (talk) at 02:35, 6 April 2014)

With all due respect, I do not think that is the full story. As Jytdog pointed out, the first edit that started this entire dispute began when an editor inserted a sentence into the lede on 14 March 2014 about Ham's claims being widely criticized and debunked. This was reverted on 18 March 2014 in the edit seen here. Within the hour that edit was reverted back again, kicking off an edit war over inserting material like this back and forth for the next 9 hours until the article was locked down (22 reverts in total on 18 March). At the same time, a number of editors moved to the Talk Page and began discussing the issue, with six in favor of adding that kind of material to the lede and five opposed (this took place between 13:23 UTC on 18 March and 15:33 UTC on 19 March in two talk page sections, 1st and 2nd). In the second section, an editor proposed the sentence in the lede be modified to specifically state that Ham's claims were "incorrect" and was quickly joined by the other five. When one editor from other faction suggested having an RfC to get more people involved, he was told "Nah. We have enough people involved. It's clear you're in the minority and wrong" and that an RfC was "not needed". Next came a statement of "broad consensus" and a request for the article be edited by an admin, who did so within 20 minutes. The extent of discussion from the time the edit war broke out to version we see presented as the "consensus version" today was approximately 24 hours. True consensus forms when the editors involved take into account the concerns raised by the different parties and work to form as wide an agreement as possible, without rushing the process and/or excluding opposing views. Framing this as a 6:1 decision ignores the 6:5 ratio of editors who expressed opinions in the dispute and the claim of broad consensus seems rushed by those interested in declaring the matter settled in favor of their preferred version. Since then, the article has seen very little peace and has been locked down the whole time since 18 March. I would like to know what other editors think with regard to these questions I asked earlier but went unanswered: Was there a sincere effort to take into account the views and concerns of the opposing five? Were there any real attempts to form as wide an agreement as possible? Is a 6:5 editor split stemming from an edit war with only 24 hours worth of Talk Page discussions really a consensus? Thank you for your patience in reading this, I know it's long but I felt it was necessary to provide diffs and expand on the details. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes there was a sincere effort to address the concerns noted. Every concern has been responded to and shown to be non-policy based. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the efforts were sincere and yes the attempt was to get an agreement as wide as possible. There was no 6:5 split, again it was 6:1 in the straw poll that was opened to gather consensus. Finally, let me note that out of those 5 editors you mentioned who opposed the edit, at least two of them did so on the basis that it was not correct to say that the Earth was billions of years old since they adhered to the creationist view. I say WP:COMPETENCE applies and this positions (based on beliefs on WP:FRINGE nonsense theories instead of WP policies) are not to be taken into account. Regards. Gaba (talk) 11:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Consensus is not a "vote" and since there was clear and abiding evidence that the consensus was not present, then there was no "consensus" to begin with. I posit that my proposal is proper and is in accord with Wikipedia policies, and that the tantrum-throwing by a person who altered a signed post should not be used to make this "go away." This RfC is open, and has the original wording, and should be worked on in this discussion. By the way, I am not a "creationist" and I suggest that ascribing views to other editors is the epitome of ignoring WP:AGF. Citing an essay, by the way, is not exactly the same as following stated policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I disagree, consensus was formed after a proper discussion in the TP. Collect this is by my count the fourth time you describe my edits as "throwing a tantrum". I just asked you above to please stop and I'm asking you again politely here now. I consider this a WP:PA and it's definitely against WP:FOC. I'm not sure what you mean by "ascribing views to other editors". If you are referring to my comment on how at least two editors disagreed based on their beliefs in creationism and how WP:COMPETENCE should apply here, please look in the threads above and you'll see that those same editors acknowledged this, I'm not in any way "ascribing" this. Regards. Gaba (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Two of the original six editors have commented saying there was a real consensus here. However, we haven't heard from anyone outside that group expressing support. Would anyone else care to add an assessment? Between March 18 and April 9 (today), there were four new editors joining the original six in agreement with the addition of "incorrect" in the lede (Jytdog, Roxythedog, 76.107.171.90, and Yobol). In opposition, a total of nineteen individuals have expressed disagreement with the change in one form or another (107.178.43.177, John Foxe, StAnselm, The Sackinator, Lampstand49, 71.178.194.11, 101.117.77.33, AzureCitizen, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Unscintillating, Bahooka, 170.135.176.108, Collect, SamuelTheGhost, Purefury182, North8000, Maunus, Acdixon, and Capitalismojo). Wikipedia is not a vote, but it means the opinion comparison is running 19:10 against. Obviously, the claim that there was a real consensus achieved here in the first 24 hours on this contentious issue needs to be validated. Can anyone else review it and comment? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

All votes from avowed creationists must be discounted per WP:COMPETENCE. jps (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
That's an incorrect interpretation of WP:COMPETENCE, though a good way of trying to maneuver a vote in your own favor.--John Foxe (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
People who reject facts in favor of their religious beliefs have no business trying to describe facts. They are, rather, incompetent. Also, since voting is evil, it's not necessary for us to argue about whether or not the vote goes one way or another. jps (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree that your religious beliefs have blinded your ability to judge facts. You want declare something "incorrect" prima facie because your religious belief in the miraculous working of Time isn't provable.--John Foxe (talk) 22:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Careful, now, you're headed towards WP:TBAN territory. You've already been warned not to promote pseudoscience, but you just can't seem to help yourself, can you? jps (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

query

Why is it essential in any way to mention the age of the universe in a BLP about Ham when the issue boils down to his belief in the literal inerrancy of the Bible, and that is what the sources refer to? In short -- why not use the simplest wording which is in accord with the sources we have (and since the wording is found in several single sources, we need not combine claims to make a SYNTH claim)? Collect (talk) 11:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Interesting point. To me it comes down to his proselytism. I'm not closely familiar with the guy (I'm not in the USA) but it seems to me that his life's work is to try to convince others that this thing which isn't true, actually is true. As in, a major part of his life (perhaps the major part of his life) is dedicated to trying to convince others of a counterfactual proposition. To me that's something worth noting. If we only note his personal belief - without also noting that he tries very hard to convince other people of something which all the evidence shows to be wrong - then we're missing out perhaps the most important thing about the guy. Just MHO. --94.193.139.22 (talk) 12:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I think "...not supported by scientific consensus..." is pretty weak and not the simplest wording. It gives more wiggle room then there is on this from a consensus view. For example three years ago if you did not believe in the Higgs Boson scientific consensus did not support that but scientific consensus would not necessarily be that you are wrong, but the consensus is that the world being 6000 years old is wrong. As for keeping it simple wording with the incorrect option, without thought to be, is by far the simplest, other then just taking on he is wrong. XFEM Skier (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Agree 100% with XFEM Skier comment. Regards. Gaba (talk) 02:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

RfC

NOTE: The signed post for this RfC was altered by a separate editor, and changed back to what the signer had originally.

Is the sentence in the lead:

His claim about the young age of the Earth, based on his interpretation of the Bible, is incorrect and dismissed as such by the scientific community

a contentious claim under WP:BLP which is supported by the sources provided, or is it SYNTH not supported as a unitary claim by any of the sources provided? Collect (talk) Collect (talk) (re-entered -- editing any user comments to say something the user did not say is improper)

Survey

  • The sentence contains four catenated claims:
      1. Ham believes that the Earth has a young age.
      2. Ham's belief is based specifically on religious grounds.
      3. Ham's belief is incorrect.
      4. Ham's belief is dismissed by the "scientific community."
  • I suggest these are distinct claims, and the catenation of them to make the claim that Ham is some sort of loon is contentious and clearly contentious. Collect (talk) 03:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Note The RfC wording is now the wording originally used in creating the RfC [1] and signed by me.. The wording was altered at [2] 02:33 7 April by Gaba. Altering of any person's words in a manner which disrupts what they stated or asked is contrary to talk page guidelines. Collect (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

*Not WP:SYNTH, indeed a proper WP:ASSERT as per Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Treatment_of_living_persons - the sentence does not denigrate the man in any way, but instead states in a neutral way that Ham's claims about the age of the earth are incorrect. This is not a matter of faith but rather about tangible reality and subject to science. There is no contradiction between BLP and FRINGE. Jytdog (talk) 10:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC) (!vote struck, as subject of RfC has now changed twice. Language for RfC should have been agreed upon before the RfC was launched. Another fruitless discussion. Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC))

  • Not SYNTH clear summary of facts presented in the article with proper assertion of fact per FRINGE. No analysis. The summary of facts is not a novel grouping and does not create an interpretation nor a new implication. There is no "claim that Ham is some sort of loon". - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)!vote struck RfC changed after voting. No support for outcome of RfC modified after discussion has started. - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
That "obscure page" is directly related to the WP:NPOV policy. WP:NPOVFAQ: "These are some Frequently Asked Questions about Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy." Regards. Gaba (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
"Directly related to" does not make it a policy or a guideline. North8000 (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
WP:YESPOV is part of policy and says much the same thing. jps (talk) 13:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • It looks like ham-fisted editorializing to me. If it were rephrased as a religious belief instead of a "claim" then the phrasing would be unnecessary. I would suggest writing instead something like, "Ham believes in Young Earth Creationism and is one of the most vocal proponents of this religious belief based on a literal interpretation of the Bible. He has frequently participated in high profile public debates with scientists, arguing for a Biblical worldview against the scientific view of the origins and chronology of the universe."User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The issues I have with Maunus' proposal are: it's wordiness, the lead should summarize and I think stating his assertion of the age of the Earth, the basis of the assertion and it's incorrectness and lack of acceptance is such a summary; also Ham argues that a biblical worldview should be taught in science classes and argues his beliefs are scientifically defensible facts. If Ham's promotion was for his worldview to be taught in comparative religion or philosophy that would be different. If Ham participated in debates with scientists to philosophically assert his beliefs that would be different. He is notable for claiming that his belief in the age of the Earth is scientific. His claim of the age of the Earth is specific (6,000 years).- - MrBill3 (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
what you call wordiness I call writing in actual flowing prose instead of slogans. I do appreciate the point you make that his argument is that his belief is a scientific fact, and that that does seem to require some kind of explicit dismissal of that in relation to the scientific consensus. I still think the wording proposed comes across as editorializing and poor writing, and that by dimply describing what is going on only the most obtuse reader would come away doubting the scientific status of Hams claims. For me the solution would simply be to describe as you say that he argues that his religious belief has a scientific status and should be treated as such, whereas the scientific community disagrees.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


Note: Altering a signed question in order to have it say something the editor did not say on the talk page is a violation of talk page rules. Kindly do not try this stunt again.

Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page

Is fairly clear. Collect (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I specifically commented right after editing the question of the RfC that I had done so and why and I was careful enough to do so before any !votes had been cast. You unilaterally opened this RfC without requesting input from any editor as to the wording of it and now you've changed the question of the RfC after several !votes were issued. Following Jytdog I've stricken my !vote and will not recognize any possible outcome of this invalid RfC. Regards. Gaba (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
And you did not notify me that you spec8fcally altered my signed words. Altering words signed by someone is against talk page rules, and is considered an affront to Wikipedia. What if I altered your words in such a way -- say to I edited Collect's comments and posts to support my own position (using your sig after that wording) or the like? would you be so disposed as to say that such is "proper"? Cheers. By the way, most RfCs are "opened unilaterally" so where you get the idea that it is in any way odd is outré. Collect (talk) 00:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
And saying "I will not recognize any possible outcome of this invalid RfC" is a tantrum at best. Collect (talk) 00:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I did not alter a comment of yours stating a position, I edited the question of an RfC before other editors voted and leaving a clear message saying that I had done so, which is quite different. Perhaps you are used to most RfC's being opened unilaterally (by yourself?), I am not. In fact if you check previous threads you'll see an effort made less than a couple of weeks ago by a number of editors trying to agree on a neutral wording for an RfC (something your original RfC lacks completely) Finally it's not a tantrum at all, simple the statement of a fact: I refuse to participate in this tendentious RfC specially since you altered it after several !votes had been issued (and even when the !vote against your proposal is clearly ahead) Look above and you'll see I'm not the only one who feels this way. Regards. Gaba (talk) 11:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
You altered a signed post on a talk page. That you now seem to think that you can alter posts by others is indicative of a problem - just as bad as when an editor hatted a clear comment which was directly relevant to the section topic. It is improper, and I am sorry to see that you do not even offer any sort of apology, but instead view this as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. My "alteration" was to my original signed post restoring what I had written. Cheers. Now if you are still throwing a tantrum, be done with it already. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
From WP:RfC: "Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue", your question was/is anything but neutral and I edited it accordingly immediately letting you and everyone else know about such edit on the talk page. Collect if you believe my editing of the RfC question was done in bad faith then I urge you to consider other venues, otherwise please WP:AGF and be done with it. I neither see this as a battleground (trust me, I've been in talk pages where saying there was a WP:BATTLEGROUND was putting it mildly) nor am I throwing a tantrum (BTW repeatedly accusing editors who are clamly responding of throwing tantrums comes pretty close to a WP:PA I'd say, would you mind dropping it?), I simply refuse to participate in an RfC which I consider invalid because: a- the question posed is not neutral and b- most of the !votes were issued after your alteration. Again, look above and you'll see I'm not alone here. Regards. Gaba (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
After you said you were boycotting this RfC - you have posted on it five more times. And I suggest that any impartial observer would note that if one is boycotting an RfC and continues to post accusations on it, that this is WP:PRAM behavior. Cheers. And have a cup of tea. Collect (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Sigh ok. Although I did not say I was "boycotting" the RfC, rather that I consider it invalid as other editors here also do, I'll stop posting here if you think that'd be best. I'll have that cup of tea now, thank you :) Regards. Gaba (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Is the sentence in the lead: His claim about the young age of the Earth, based on his interpretation of the Bible, is incorrect and dismissed as such by the scientific community a contentious claim under WP:BLP which is supported by the sources provided, or is it SYNTH not supported as a unitary claim by any of the sources provided?

Is neutrally worded as a question, and does not contain argumentation. The proper course if you demur with the wording is to place your suggested wording under the initial phrasing, not to simply remove the wording while retaining the signature of the OP.

If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template. Do not close the RfC just because you think the wording is biased.

Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You jumped the gun. That's not my fault. Your entire premise that this is a well-constructed question is flawed. It presents a false dichotomy and it begs the question in multiple places (maybe I think it is a claim but it is not contentious, maybe I don't think "unitary claims" ever exist in any source regardless of subject, maybe I think that WP:SYNTH is not the correct question for such a WP:COMMONSENSE point, etc). That you didn't do due diligence is regrettable, but further insinuating that my criticism is somehow related to closing the RfC is absurd. If you aren't very good at arguing for your point, perhaps you should leave the page to those who are. jps (talk) 14:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Did you read WP:RFC? I note you described the question as being "tendentious" which is weird as it provides a dichotomy for the editors commenting. Either the claim is directly supported as stated by the sources or else it is SYNTH. I do not think any person would dispute that it is "contentious" as all that means is it is being contested -- I think we went over what "contentious" means in the past. The proper thing to have done is suggest that the word you dispute be removed, not to entirely change the question and insert an essay as your rationale. Essays are not policies. And imputing a post to a person by changing the substance of his post is simply wrong per Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Lastly, snark about "leave editing to me because I think you are incapable of arguing your point" or the like is simply and blatantly an abuse of Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
You're still advocating for false dichotomies and now you are putting words into my mouth (where did I say the question was "tendentious"?). The only person who seems to be abusive here is Collect. jps (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
"Tendentious" quotes: I've amended the question since it was incredibly tendentious. Regards. Gaba (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC); Collect, I opened this section to try to gain consensus to change the language you are objecting to. You are behaving tendentiously as you are derailing my efforts to do that.; I refuse to participate in this tendentious RfC specially since you altered it after several !votes had been issued (and even when the !vote against your proposal is clearly ahead) Look above and you'll see I'm not the only one who feels this way. Regards. Gaba (talk) 11:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC); etc. The use of "tendentious" on this page was certainly not confined to a single editor, and I ought have extended the attribution to multiple editors. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • This looks like a train wreck of an RFC, so it is unlikely anything will come of it. For what its worth I don't see the sentence as Synth as the lead is supposed to summarise the body and this appears to do so fine. I don't see anything contentious about saying he is wrong about the age of the earth either as that is fact and we should deal in facts. Saying this the alternative wording does not seem bad at all. Personally I prefer this version[3] as being simple and direct. I think this change makes the article worse though as it is not just the fossil record, but just about every branch of science that contradicts him. AIRcorn (talk) 01:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I really should let this WP:DEADHORSE of an RfC alone but I just can't help to wonder: Collect did you really just edit another editor's comment after going on for days about how this is so utterly inappropriate?

Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page

Does the above statement sound familiar? What is your rationale for this? Regards. Gaba (talk) 02:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

And did you sign that edit which you now carp about? I thought so. When you added that material to the RfC as listed on the RfC page you were still making an edit to something I had signed. Or did that fact elide your notice? Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
So as long as it's not explicitly signed it's fair game to edit another editor's comment, that's the idea? Weird, I didn't find that stated in WP:TPG. That's ok Collect, let's just forget about it. Regards. Gaba (talk) 12:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Read the talk page guidelines -- it is contrary to them to alter words to imply that any editor holds any opinion he does not hold. Was this not clear on that page? Where an editor makes a heading of any sort - that is not something which is a statement by that editor. Does this seem clearer now? Thus when someone makes a section title "Bullshit by George Gnarph" - that is not protected at all, but if a person says "I like oatmeal" and another editor changes it to "I like Cheerios" that is an edit affecting an edit by another editor. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I have read the TPG and I'm sorry but there's no getting around the fact that you altered another editor's comment after going on for days about how wrong this practice was. Your ad-hoc differentiation between a "comment" and a "heading" is as weak as it can get and in case you haven't noticed the note left by TheRedPenOfDoom was clearly a "statement by that editor". You edited such statement to imply something else other than what the editor intended originally. Your rationalizing of this to pretend it is anything different than what I did when I edited the RfC question is discouraging since it shows you have apparently no self-criticism mechanism and are not willing to give an inch on anything. Anyway, cheers to you too and hopefully we can agree to disagree. Regards. Gaba (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

IMO, the material consists of four distinct claims, each of which may be viewed individually as contentious and thus requiring individual sourcing per WP:BLP, and the catenation of them becomes WP:SYNTH if the entire combination is not found in a reliable source. Collect (talk) 22:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I've amended the question since it was incredibly tendentious. Regards. Gaba (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Items 1 & 2 are clearly present in the article and the sources. Ham has repeatedly claimed the age of the Earth to be 6,000 years and supported this claim with a religious basis. Items 3 & 4 represent plain and simple assertion of fact appropriate per FRINGE. Just as the claim the Earth is flat is incorrect and claims that it is have been dismissed by the scientific community, the claim that the Earth is 6,000 years old and this claim has been dismissed are basic facts that should be clearly asserted per FRINGE. It is not SYNTH to present "Claim, basis, fact, acceptance". This is appropriate summary and FRINGE treatment of content for LEAD.
The repeated, extensive and tendentious contention of this basic material is disruptive. I would support application of ArbCom sanctions to prevent this continued disruption. - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
"Young earth" is not wp:fringe (wrong, but not wp:fringe) It (a literal interpretation of the bible) is believed by an immense number of people and so by definition it is not fringe. North8000 (talk) 12:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Young Earth is pretty much the definition of fringe which is not defined by a popularity contest but by its standing within the scientific community.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
we dont define "fringe ideas" based on "popularity" - "fringe ideas" are based upon where they sit in relation to the mainstream academic viewpoints. Here Young Earth is so far from the mainstream academic views that it has trouble even seeing the "fringe" ideas. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia has problems in defining "fringe" with regard to "religious views" and the sentence at issue clearly states that this is a religious issue. I suggest that those who are adamant that religious beliefs be called "incorrect" in Wikipedia's voice should read the ArbCom discussions and opinions on "New Religious Movements" etc. before making this a test case of ""science versus religion" - links to the related articles are sufficient without wielding a sledgehammer to say a person is a loon. [4] The decision linked includes:
Editors who edit biographies of living persons and other articles referring to living persons are reminded that all editing of these articles must comply with the biographies of living persons policy and with the principles set forth in this decision.
In short this article is a BLP and must strictly conform to that policy. We can not elide the policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
You are correct. And BLP states clearly that we must follow NPOV which states that we must place items in context. Which therefore leaves Ham's YEC views as being incorrect and dismissed as such by the academic mainstream. We cannot elide this things.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Ham makes a claim of the age of the Earth as a fact. While he supports this with religious beliefs he contends it is a fact (he seeks to have it taught in science classes, participates in debates with scientists, etc.) It is notable that Ham contends the age of the Earth is a fact. If his assertions were limited to expressions of his religious belief he would be a far less notable individual. His belief that this is a fact is well supported by the sources. There is no violation of BLP in including that an individual makes a claim of fact nor that the individual supports the claim of fact with religious beliefs. Nor is there anything in BLP that states that asserting a fact claimed by an individual is incorrect should not be included. The contention that the article "say(s) a person is a loon" is patently false. Again a clear summary of the fact that Ham makes a claim that the age of the Earth is 6,000 as a fact (not a religious belief), he bases this claim of fact on religious interpretations or beliefs, that this claim is incorrect and has been dismissed, is appropriate content for the lead. - - MrBill3 (talk) 13:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
And the sources make absolutely clear that his belief is in the inerrancy of the Bible. If that is not the pure definition of a "religious belief" I do not know what wording you would seek <g>.
His religious belief in the literal inerrancy of the Bible is not supported by scientific consensus.
Seemed to me to represent a reasonable statement -- although TRPoD reverted it instantly. Collect (talk) 13:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC) Collect (talk) 13:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Making an edit to the content that is the subject of an RfC with no proposal or consensus is disruptive. This is looking more like something for ANI. - - MrBill3 (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Making edit seeking reasonable compromise wording consistent with policy is never "disruptive" and your iterated templating of me is Pythonesque to say the least. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Editing content without a proposal and consensus while content is being discussed in an RfC is indeed disruptive. Your contention that it was "seeking a reasonable compromise" is false. Your interpretation of policy is faulty as has been pointed out here. I have placed two notices on your talk page. One was to inform you I find the repeated contention of supported content on this talk page disruptive and one to notify you that editing content during an RfC without proposal or consensus is disruptive. This was not done to by Pythonesque but to observe policy and allow for your reply before proceeding with other forms of dispute resolution. AGF is being stretched to the breaking point here. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Read the damn policies please. You appear to not understand WP:TALK, WP:Refactoring, WP:BLP, WP:CONSENSUS and the proper and improper use of "hatting". Other than that you are doing well. Your iterated warnings to an estanblished editor are in slight conflict with the actual polices quoted on my talk page. Discussion is not disruption and your threat of going to AN/I would have interesting results. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I have not performed any "hatting" or refactoring nor in any way made any changes to any others editors comments. If I have done so by mistake please post a diff and I will revert. Two warnings of disruptive editing on a user's talk page are clearly within policy. I am not making a "threat" to go to ANI but suggesting it may be the appropriate next step. I prefer to avoid the drama boards and welcome other methods of dispute resolution first. However, repeated contention of supported material and edits made to content that is the subject of an ongoing RfC are in my opinion disruptive. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
MrBill3 is indeed correct and this edit by Collect in the middle of an RfC discussion (which was opened by him) precisely about that sentence is the definition of disruptive. You'd be wise not to engage in such behaviour again. Regards. Gaba (talk) 14:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Read WP:CONSENSUSwhich states that compromise is the best path. So far, I have proffered a compromise, and I have not seen one proffered by others, therefore I suggest it is the adamant editors who are "disruptive" here. Cheers. (I find it interesting that I, with well over 30K edits, am being lectured by folks (insert - not referring to MrBill here) with 10% the number of edits <g>) Collect (talk) 15:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
"I find it interesting that I, with well over 30K edits, am being lectured by folks with 10% the number of edits" which translates to "I have a lot of edits so I can't be wrong, you have less edits so shut up". Nice. Cheers to you. Gaba (talk) 15:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
No -- it means I have wide experience in Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and templating me and issuing "warnings" is not impressing me at all. Collect (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I find it stretches AGF to contend that making an edit to a sentence being discussed in an RfC without discussion is proffering a compromise. The contention that other editors have not proffered suggestions is false. What would you contend is disruptive about adamantly insisting on following policy by a number of editors? Your extensive editing history gives you an impressive number to cite but your highly questionable interpretation of policy and the word compromise leads one to wonder about your WP:COMPETENCE. Lets stick to clear and supported policy based arguments not attempt an argument from authority. Provide some explanation of your contention of SYNTH, the policy gives an example with explanation where is the explanation for your contention. Please note the specific sources I have cited on this talk page. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Ham's religious belief in the literal inerrancy of the bible has lead him to contend and promote his belief in the age of the Earth, this is the fact already clearly presented in the article. Ham's contention and promotion of the Earth being 6,000 years old as a fact are notable and supported in the sources. The fact that the Earth is not 6,000 years old and claims that it is have been dismissed are clear assertions of facts supported by the scientific consensus. Why do I feel like I am repeating myself... Is there any policy based argument with my contentions? - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes there is, as has been stated several times. We must stick to what a reliable source states explicitly, and that is that his belief in the inerrancy of the Bible is not supported by scientific consensus. Short and clear, and avoiding SYNTH. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • We should remember that we are not under any policy obligation to point out the scientific consensus everytime we describe someone's religious belief. Indeed it would be extremely silly to do that. If we simply state that Ham believes in the inerrancy of the bible and the young earth chronology then there is no need to state in the text the scientific status of those beliefs. The scientific status however of his beliefs become relevant in the context of his discussions with scientists and here it is necessary to explain the status of YEC as a concept with no scientific standing.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Ham & Hodge 2012 give both the 6,000 year age of the Earth and Ham's basis for this belief. It's in the source. The fact that the Earth is not 6,000 years old and claims that it is have been dismissed needs little more sourcing than the fact the Earth is not flat. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Ham 2007 states, "Many people think the Bible is just a book about religion or salvation. It is much more than this. The Bible is the History Book of the Universe and tells us the future destiny of the universe as well. It gives us an account of when time began, the main events of history" This is one of many clear points where Ham himself attempts to bridge religion and science. It is specifically this "scientific" assertion of his beliefs which is largely responsible for Ham's notability. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps it would be useful to state this explicitly in the lead and note that this claim is specifically what has brought him into conflict with the scientific community that consider his claims to be counterfactual.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll not wade into a a duelling policies debate; I don't really find that productive. I will ask, however, what is wrong with Collect's proposed alternative? The fact is that polls show that a non-trivial number of people in the U.S. agree with Ham for religious reasons. Precisely because their agreement is based on religion, there is a greater chance that they will be offended by our characterization of their religious beliefs as "incorrect". If our goal is to be a widely-used knowledge resource, why would we knowlingly alienate a non-trivial segment of potential users when we could avoid doing so without compromising accuracy? Collect's version makes it clear that scientific consensus is in direct conflict with Ham's views. This is well-known and indisputable. For those who regard scientific consensus as the sole arbiter of fact, the statements "His claim about the young age of the Earth, based on his interpretation of the Bible, is incorrect and dismissed as such by the scientific community" and "His religious belief in the literal inerrancy of the Bible is not supported by scientific consensus" should be functionally equivalent. For those who don't, Collect's version is totally accurate while remaining non-offensive. No harm, no foul, I should think. Is there an argument for keeping the extant version beyond "We must hammer home the FRINGE-iness of YEC at every opportunity, regardless of how much of our potential readership it may cost us"? If not, that seems like a pretty silly rationale, but not one I'd be terribly surprised to see defended around here. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I pretty much agree (except in basing the rationale on retaining readership). User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
1) They are not functionally equivalent as outlined by WP:ASSERT. 2) Wikipedia content should not be WP:CENSORED because it might offend religious beliefs. See the whole images of Mohammad issue. If people only want to go to sites that dont offend their religious views, they dont have to come to Wikipedia. If they come to Wikipedia, they should expect to be presented with the best representation of the mainstream academic views. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The fact that WP:ASSERT exists does not mean those statements are not functionally equivalent in the mind of one who regards scientific consensus as the sole arbiter of fact. That's the contention I made. Second, I don't see anything being censored in Collect's version. Nobody loses out on any information by reading Collect's version. The rest of your statement shows exactly the mentality I am advocating against – if they don't like us, let them go somewhere else. Well, why drive them somewhere else if we can keep them and give them exactly the same information in a way that doesn't offend them? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
You are correct that it is not the existence of ASSERT that makes the statements not functionally equivalent. It is the fact that they are NOT functionally equivalent that makes them not functionally equivalent. ASSERT however, reaffirms that to follow NPOV we should not be treating functionally non equivalent statements as if they were functionally equivalent.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
In what way are they not functionally equivalent to one who starts with the premise that scientific consensus as the sole arbiter of fact? And the question remains open of what is being censored in Collect's version. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
You are the one who validated that censorship based on attempting not to offend was a motivating reason for not directly stating the facts : "there is a greater chance that they will be offended by our characterization of their religious beliefs as "incorrect"." . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Using language that is designed not to offend is not the same thing as censorship. Censorship is omitting something for the purpose of non-offense. My contention from the beginning has been that Collect's version omits nothing and has the added benefit of being potentially less offensive versus the extant version. That makes it preferable, in my opinion. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 20:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Collect's version does indeed omit a straightforward assertion that Ham's claims of a Young Earth are incorrect. And removing that straightforward assertion of incorrectness in order to potentially not offend is indeed censorship. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Just because there isn't a straightforward assertion does not mean the sentence doesn't say Ham is wrong. That's why I said it is functionally equivalent. It means the same thing; it is only said a different way – a way that is potentially less offensive. How does the content differ in Collect's version? It doesn't. If scientific consensus = truth and Ham <> scientific consensus, then Ham <> truth, correct? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 21:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
While are many ways to be "functionally equivalent" as per clearly outlined in WP:ASSERT the options you are offering are not. One clearly and straightforwardly asserts the overwhelming academic mainstream view. The other sugar-coats and mambypamby's the completely fringe position of the YEC claims. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
WP:ASSERT is not about whether the content is equivalent. Human beings have been making judgments about whether two statements contain the same information or not long before there was such a thing as WP:ASSERT. I am arguing that the content is the same in both versions; it is not censored or changed in Collect's version. There are obviously differences in form that are fit for discussion, but no one has yet shown how the two statements differ in meaning. I would argue that is because they don't. I want to establish this because I believe this discussion is primarily about the form of the statement, not the content. There may or may not be a legitimate argument about whether WP:ASSERT presents a policy problem for the form of Collect's version, but it does not change the fact that his version and the extant one contain the same information. If the content is the same – which, again, can and should be evaluated independently of WP:ASSERT – then let's engage only on the topic of form – where WP:ASSERT may be relevant – and leave out these so-far unsupported claims of censorship and omission of content. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
WP:ASSERT is not policy, and refers to the use of "opinion wording" where "fact wording" is called for to provide a neutral point of view. It does not defend WP:SYNTH and in the case at hand the proffered wording does not assert anything as an "opinion" and is fully compliant with that non-policy argument WP:ASSERT. And I have no idea why editors do not recognize it as a good proposal. Collect (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
WP:YESPOV is policy. jps (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It is not an "opinion" that a claim that the earth is 6000 years old is incorrect. If someone makes a claim that "Abraham Lincoln was the first president of the United States" we would proclaim that assertion incorrect because it is incorrect. There is no "opinionining" going on here. Ham has made his notability almost entirely upon his asserting repeatedly an incorrect statement. We following WP:NPOV as BLP requires place his assertion as it is seen by the academic mainstream. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
As I indicated in a different thread above, wp:assert is not a policy or even a guideline. North8000 (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
ASSERT is the Frequently repeated consensus to how to apply NPOV policy. You can claim that we should ignore that project-wide consensus because it doesnt have a little box on top, but WP:LOCALCONSENSUS says otherwise. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't see anything in WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that supports that statement, but I'm ready to let this fade out. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Please read WP:YESPOV. jps (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
This phrasing proposed above " his belief in the inerrancy of the Bible is not supported by scientific consensus. seems like a positive formulation. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
yes is does sound positively whitewashing and inappropriately not following WP:NPOV#UNDUE as we are required to do by WP:BLP. 20:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The sentence "His claims...are incorrect" revision

The wording on the Ken Ham article "His claims... are incorrect.." is biased. Wouldn't "His claims... are believed to be or thought to be incorrect" be less leading and not show partiality to either side? Please show one evidence that he's wrong: a transitional fossil, someone who was actually alive billions of years ago and actually witnessed evolution or an evidence of evolution, or a animal that is currently evolving into another animal. Creation has many proofs: Fossilized birds, mammals, and fish are exactly the same as living birds, mammals, and fish (No evolution has taken place!), there is a book that is an accurate account of where this world came from and who created it, written by people who were there and lived at that time, the Bible. Evolution has never been observed. Since there is no proof Ken Ham is wrong, it seems presumptuous to state that he is! Snoopy5566 (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Scientists generally do not accept the inerrancy of the Bible, and the empirical evidence does not support inerrancy of the Bible. This is clear, That does not mean the current wording is serendipitous at all, which is why there is a discussion thereon.
His religious belief in the literal inerrancy of the Bible is not supported by scientific consensus.
IMO, is a better statement than the current language. Collect (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, forget the Bible. Even if it is inerrant or not, you still can't prove he is wrong. He uses scientific evidence to prove his claims and it makes sense. Show me the transitional fossils, or a fossilized animal that is different than its living counterpart, and that will prove he's wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snoopy5566 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Here is the fossil you asked for, Archaeopteryx. Or look through the sources on the age of Earth on that wiki page. Really the age of the earth is not up for debate. Just because people believe something is true doesn't make it true. XFEM Skier (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
What do mainstream religions make of Ken's batshit insane claims? Seems to me it would be nice to show how the Pope, the Dhalai Llama, L Ron Hubbard, the Mormons, the Spaghetti monsterists etc feel about this silly idea. That mainstream thought in the article might help. I bet they think he's a loon. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 20:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
As a Pastafarian I am completely offended that you would seek the opinions of the heretical splinter sect calling themselves Monsterists and not even consider our views. I am considering seeking divine retribution against you and all of your future noodle dinners. (And no, the Nudelists dont speak for us either, they are just posers who like to be naked in front of a camera.)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Hard to distinguish mainstream from fringe religions except by virtue of attendance. By that metric, Ken Ham is actually pretty mainstream. There are a lot of Christians who are members of fundamentalist/evangelical churches who accept a literal/inerrant belief in the Bible similar to what Ken Ham advocates. The "mainline" Protestant religions have mostly resolved their disputes over these matters round about 80 to 90 years ago in favor of those who oppose Ken Ham. Catholics and Orthodox Churches (and Mormons -- at least officially -- as well) have tended toward esotericism to prevent literalist tendencies. In short, the low churches are all in favor of Ken Ham, but low churches are pretty damn popular. jps (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a compromise

78.86.131.23 proposes the following

"His claim that the universe is only 6,000 years old, based on his interpretation of the Bible, is contradicted by physical evidence found in the Earth's fossil and geological records."

I think this is an excellent compromise. It asserts, plainly, the facts and eliminates wording that may be less than felicitous.

I boldly tried it out. [5]

If you hate it, revert it and discuss here.

jps (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I originally voted to remove the sentence and just state Ham believes in YEC. I would accept this compromise. I would probably remove the word "only", but that's a small thing. Bahooka (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
"Only" seems like an adverb that everyone agrees with, though. They wouldn't call themselves "YEC" if they didn't think the Earth was "only" 6,000 years old. Ham does not shy away from comparing his beliefs to the contradictory facts (which he steadfastly denies). I don't think he would object to the word "only" to emphasize the young character of his view of the universe. jps (talk) 21:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Like I said, the word "only" is a small thing and not a deal-breaker for me. Leave it in. Bahooka (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't know how you can declare the age of the universe based on "physical evidence found in the Earth's fossil and geological records" unless those records either come with dates on them or you cite their age to the consensus of the scientific community. If their age were self-evident, Europeans would have believed in their great age long before James Hutton and Charles Lyell.--John Foxe (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Those records come with dates on them. jps (talk) 22:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Only if you believe that isotopes have always decayed at a constant rate and you overlook the inconsistencies in the various measurements. Who tells us that isotopes have always decayed at the same rate? The scientific community, of course. So the evidence is not self-evident. It depends on a consensus of scientists.--John Foxe (talk) 22:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Query: can you describe the implications of what it would mean if isotopes did not decay at a constant rate? How would this affect quantum mechanics and, in turn, how could our understanding of the atom be modified to accommodate skepticism about the constant rate of isotope decay? In your answer, please provide at least plausible estimates for your modified theory of stochastic processes. Also, could you please quote one paper that shows that there are inconsistencies in measurements that cast doubt on the age of the earth? Until you can provide such sources, we may be forced to appeal to WP:AE so that you can be banned from these pages. jps (talk) 23:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

As I said above, neither creationist nor evolutionist origins are provable by what we usually think of as science. We have to make assumptions. If God created Adam "from the dust of the ground," how old would Adam look on day one? How old would that "dust" be?--John Foxe (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
So, no, you can't answer my query. I'm getting a little tired of your trolling. jps (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't hate it and if it keeps people from reverting it every couple of hours it seems like it might be worthwhile to compromise for sanity sake. One issue is do the sources cited support this, I know there are sources to support it but do those particular ones.
Secondly should we put in information about stars too since it is refutting a Universe age. Old Star Find XFEM Skier (talk) 23:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
As far as compromises go I could live with this one but I agree with XFEM Skier, if we are going to mention the age of the Universe then we should mention the incredibly abundant astronomic evidence about its age too.
Collect, AzureCitizen what do you guys think? Regards. Gaba (talk) 01:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Putting in a comment about astronomical evidence seems wise to me as well. jps (talk) 01:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
In what precise way is it superior to the simpler His religious belief in the literal inerrancy of the Bible is not supported by scientific consensus. which uses the sources' claim of "literal inerrancy" instead of "his interpretation" as we have no sources that say he has a specific personal interpretation not held by anyone else, and I see no gain in using "fossil records etc." instead of the more general "scientific consensus" as the science is not dependent on fossils but substantially on geology for specific age of tis planet. And if we list dozens of pieces for reasoning (movement of stars, red shift, black holes etc.), we fall afoul of making the article actually unusable by readers. Can you explain why this wording would be superior? Collect (talk) 01:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Just finished watching the new Cosmos S01E05 and came back to see that there is genuine mutual interest here in finding a way to phrase the lede using something other than saying Ham is "incorrect". I'm certainly open to compromise! Perhaps we could make use of the examples page we were going to use previously, and try hashing out some hybrid combinations of the text suggestions above to arrive at something everyone feels is "close enough" to a solution. I will try formulating something, and be right back with the link again. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not too bad, but I agree with XFEM Skier and Gaba that if we mention the universe we should provide information about the age of the universe. It is superior to identify the claim he makes about the age of the universe rather than his biblical literalism because it is this claim and Ham's assertion that this claim is scientifically defensible that is largly responsible for his notability. As above Ham's claim and it's basis are clearly in the sources. The sentence doesn't state "he has a specific personal interpretation not held by anyone else" the sentence states "His claim that the universe is only 6,000 thousand years old, based on his interpretation of the bible" this is very clearly present in the source (Ham & Hodge 2012). This is a claim Ham makes repeatedly and this claim is published in a book he coauthored with his explanation of it's basis. This is very clearly supported by the sources. As for the basis of asserting the fact that this claim is wrong, it is only in the interest of compromise that anything other than a simple straightford statement that this claim is wrong and has been dismissed by the scientific community is being suggested. Perhaps what should be asserted is the age of the Earth and the approximate age of the universe. Like,

"Ham claims that the universe, which is about 14 billion years old, and the Earth, which is 4.5 billion years old, are only 6,000 years old based on his belief that the bible is literally and factually accurate."

- - MrBill3 (talk) 03:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've added the new versions suggested today, you'll find them at the bottom of the example page (the one by jps that I'm glad to see hasn't been reverted so far, the one by Collect drawing strictly from the cites, a hybrid formulation of my own, and the one suggested by MrBill3). Seeing things in print helps, and the idea here is for folks to add their own ideas/versions (several if you'd like) and see if we can arrive at something closer to a general compromise. Gaba, please take a stab at what you had in mind too, if you're interested. Everyone can find the page again here at the link below. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks jps. I agree with people above who suggest that evidence from astronomy should also be mentioned. I can also see why we might want to drop the word 'only'. So suggest replace with "His claim that the universe is 6,000 years old, based on his interpretation of the Bible, is contradicted by evidence from astronomy and from the Earth's fossil and geological records." 94.193.139.22 (talk) 11:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC) (formerly 78.86)

I think the fact that 78.86.131.23's compromise didn't immediately rankle anyone (as far as I can tell) is a good thing. I also thought it a decent compromise when I first saw it, and if others think the bit about astronomy is that important, I think 94.193.139.22's proposal immediately above does a nice job of including it succinctly. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Coming here from BLPN - Agree withe the compromise proposed by anon 78.86.131.23 Cwobeel (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Ken Ham's opinion about the age of the earth is NOT contradicted by physical evidence!

Violation of WP:TPG
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Ken Ham's opinion about the age of the earth is NOT contradicted by physical evidence, in fact its exactly the opposite! people have done tests on dating methods and it is incorrect, go to this website and see for your self:http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.htmlg-c007.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelby2002 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

But you would not gripe about "his belief in the literal inerrancy of the Bible is not supported by scientific consensus" as a reasonable and non-judgmental statement? Collect (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
we only use reliable sources, not the well absolutely non-reliable stuff that you have listed. in the reliably published work, his claim has been proven wrong and very wrong and very very wrong for a hundred years. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
What non-reliable stuff have I listed? Collect (talk) 01:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
The article you linked to relies very heavily on non-reliable sources. Having a PhD does not make what you say correct, unfortunately. I don't see anything from a peer reviewed journal in that article but there is plenty of it in Earth and radiocarbon dating. Using the "scientist" at AIG to refute a claim about the founder of AIG also is not good practice. Seriously these issues are not up for debate. I would also encourage you to look over the information at the top of the talk page about pseudoscience. XFEM Skier (talk) 00:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I support Collect's statement as part of a proper lead for this article. (And thanks Collect for being knowledgeable enough to know the difference between "inerrant" and "literal.")--John Foxe (talk) 01:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Young Earth creationism advocacy is prima facie evidence for incompetence. I suggest archiving this section as not being useful (citing christiananswers.net as a possible source for a claim about the physical universe is not helpful). jps (talk) 11:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I am far from a YEC, but I find your comments quite offensive -- it is like saying "people who are incorrect in their beliefs may not edit Wikipedia because I do not like them".
As long as editors act within Wikipedia policies and guidelines, I do not give a damn what their beliefs are -- they can be Atheists, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Zoroastrians, Scientologists, or whatever they are -- it is not up to us to categorize any large group as "incompetent to edit" and I suggest that if such is your position, that we can easily see where the problem is here. In fact, I suggest you read WP:PIECE and note exactly what it says about letting your beliefs interfere with how you edit articles on subjects you dislike. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't care what people's beliefs are. But outright advocacy of creationism is neither helpful nor in the spirit of WP:ENC. Therefore, archiving is appropriate. People who advocate for creationism or other pseudosciences in their attempts to effect change to content simply have no voice when it comes to how Wikipedia should cover science. That's always been the consensus here. jps (talk) 12:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedians are welcome to believe that the flat earth, on the back of a gigantic turtle, is at the centre of the universe; but should not expect much support if they try to edit Wikipedia so that it presents their beliefs as scientific fact. --82.44.96.198 (talk) 14:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I've already confessed to believing in a youngish earth, but I've never advocated promoting creationism at Wikipedia or portraying it as scientific fact; rather, my burden has been to demonstrate the philosophical error of having Wikipedia's voice portray the god Time as science.--John Foxe (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Let us know when you find a reliable source that does this. Preferably a peer-reviewed one. jps (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
You said portray the god Time as science but I didn't understand that phrase at all. Probably it's my fault, but still, I'm totally failing to understand what you're saying. Could you rephrase your comment? --82.44.96.198 (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

sorry that this link doesn't work, I'm not shure why. What exactly is a reliable source in your eyes anyway?The K (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:RS. jps (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
You can just remove the everything after the first html and it works. Not that it is worth time reading.XFEM Skier (talk) 22:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

why is this page locked?

why is this page locked?The K (talk) 21:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

because of almost constant vandalism. NathanWubs (talk) 22:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't call correcting personal attacks vandalism. Kelb2002 (talk) 22:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Kelby2002 (aka The K) & Kelb2002 if you are the same editor and you are using both these accounts to edit WP you should probably read WP:SOCK then choose one of them, use only that one to continue editing and discard the other one. Regards. Gaba (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
The page is actually locked for persistent sock-puppetry currently. Previously it was locked for edit warring. You can figure this out from the history FYI. XFEM Skier (talk) 23:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Literal inerrancy vs. biblical inerrancy

I changed Collect's phrasing here from "His belief in the literal inerrancy of the Bible is not supported" to "His belief in biblical inerrancy is not supported." I mean this to preserve the sense but to be more accurate, as it's not so much the inerrancy that's literal and this way we can wikilink to biblical inerrancy, as "inerrancy" is a theological term of art and has subtleties that a general reader may miss. I mean this only as a clarification, and support what I take to be the substance of Collect's edit. If I've missed something, please revert and we can discuss.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


Note: Cyclopia wants to put the word "any" before "physical evidence found in the Earth's fossil, biological and geological records" here. This is too sweeping a statement to make without a source, which would take us too far afield from this one guy's position. For the sentence to be true with the word "any" there it would have to be the case that there is nothing, literally not one thing, in the bible the truth of which is supported by "fossil, biological, and geological records." As fossil records include human remains, and as there is some archeological evidence here and there for the accuracy of some of the historical narratives in the bible, the word "any" is too much. It's possible to craft a sentence that says what is evidently wanted here, but I don't see the point at all. It's way TMI for the lead section of this one guy's article.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

There are people who believe in "Biblical inerrancy" who do not apply it in a literal manner -- that is, the Roman Catholic church "believes" that the universe was made in precisely six "days" [6] - but says that the "days" were not "earth days of 24 hours" but represents the progression of creation. Ham appears to believe God timed things so that the "earth day" was what is precisely meant. Thus the inclusion of "literal." Again, we are at the intersection of religious belief and empirical observations. (RC church uses the term "inerrant", by the way) [7] may also shed some light on the usage. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
That's fair. I still think "literal inerrancy" is wrong for the reasons I gave above. We have an easter egg link to Biblical literalism in the section above. Perhaps there's a fix that would eliminate that and make this sentence more accurate without using the phrase "literal inerrancy." What do you think of what I just tried?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
It might work - or it might just confuse people who actually have read anything on the topic <g>. As soon as article touch on religion, there is no way to assure that we write with NPOV rather than simply seeking to disprove essentially all religion. Collect (talk) 23:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, I'm certainly open to suggestions. I'd just as soon take the whole sentence out because I think its contrary to WP:LEAD, but there doesn't seem to be consensus for that.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

What goes in a lead paragraph

OK, perhaps we're moving toward a statement about the wrongness of YEC that we can all live with. If so, maybe it's time to consider what else should go in the lead paragraph, guided, of course, by WP:OPENPARA. As of now, about 50% of the material in our lead is about the wrongness. That seems to me to give it undue weight given that is is not an article about YEC but about an actual individual person. Note that I am not arguing that we shouldn't mention the wrongness, but that we should balance out the statement of the wrongness by adding more of the normal stuff that goes into a biographical lead paragraph.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

to put his work in context of academic view , it should be about 90 % about his wrong ness. [8] [9] etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk • contribs) 19:42, 12 April 2014‎
Maybe, but I'm more interested in the MOS.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Noahs ark is not stalled

It is true that it used to be stalled but is no longer. Building starts in May. A simple Google search can confirm this.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2570078/Noahs-ark-project-Ky-forward.html

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/27/ark-encounter-theme-park/5881323/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.135.176.108 (talk) 07:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Former high school teacher in lead

Removed here with edit summary "rm teacher job mention already present below + change to include back "any" but without the issue raised in talk". Naturally it's mentioned below. Lead paragraphs should not contain *any* material that's not mentioned below. I think that this is quite essential to describing the guy's career. Why, per WP:LEAD, should it not be mentioned in both places? This was my first attempt at bringing the lead paragraph into compliance with the MOS as described in the section immediately above this one.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I removed it because I do not think it is a vital piece of information to have on the lead. I have no strong position here though and I wouldn't revert you if you added it back. Regards. Gaba (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I just thought it was super-interesting that the guy went from teaching high school science to a position so fringe that even the mainstream fringe thinks it's fringe. I don't really care that much either. I just think the lead needs to have more than one sentence on what the guy thinks and one sentence on why it's idiotic.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I think it's probably a worthwhile inclusion. I'll add it back in some fashion, subject to any strong disagreement from folks. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Idiosyncratic interpretations

DavidLeighEllis has removed the following material twice now with nasty little edit summaries claiming that it's "unsourced negative material" and so forth [10]:

Ham's views have been criticized not only by scientists, but by mainstream Christians, by other Christian fundamentalists, and even by fellow creationists.

So we have two questions to consider, colleagues. First, is this negative? Second, does this need sourcing in the lead given that it's a fairly literal summary of presumably acceptable material in the "Criticism" section, which DavidLeighEllis in all his glory has seen fit neither to remove nor to threaten blocks over the presence of. I invite your comments and consideration.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced. Nor is this an accurate summary of the material in the criticism section, since it makes the criticism seem more extensive than we have sources for. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Why's it contentious? Why's it unsourced? I just don't understand your point. Also, why are you adding unsourced contentious material yourself? Why aren't you removing it from the criticism section? I just don't understand what you're up to here.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
It does not matter if it is "negative" as long as it is properly sourced. We need very clear sources for criticism by 1- mainstream Christians 2- other Christian fundamentalists and 3- fellow creationists.
The lead can have sources added in articles like this one where content is usually contested. If we can find WP:RS for those three claims I'd have no problem in adding it. Regards. Gaba (talk) 01:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
They can have sources, sure, but if people will read before screeching BLPOMG, they might just not need them. If they do in this case, why don't we use the sources that are currently used in the criticism section where I got the material: mainstream Christians, other fundamentalists, and even by fellow creationists. Furthermore, DavidLeighEllis, you might consider that essentially the same sentence you removed from the lead appears without an inline citation in the criticism section. If you read it before your hasty edit, why didn't you remove it from there as well?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Its not the same sort of statement at all. Compare
to
  • "Other Christians, old Earth creationists, and the scientific community at large have criticized Ham's statements and tactics."
The first statement is implying that Ham's views are so wrong that even... reject them. The second is simply an NPOV summary of the text that follows. And the same paragraph contains ample inline citations to support it. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
uhh, his views ARE so wrong that even ... reject them. That is pretty much the starting point.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
So now you're not arguing that the content of the two things is different, but that the one "is implying" something that the other one is not? I think you must mean "insinuate" rather than "imply," but that's neither here nor there. If you agree that the sentence in the body is supported by the sources in the body, you must agree that the statement you removed is supported by those sources as well since the denotative content of the two statements is the same. If it's the tone of the statement you removed that bothers you, why did you say it's unsourced, when you just now agreed that at least the content of it is sourced?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
This is a BLP. Connotations matter, and inline citations are required. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
So I provided sources above. Do you think the sources support the material you removed or not? Are you now dropping your newer claim that my sentence violates NPOV? If the first, why don't you put the material back in and I'll add the sources since you insist, even though I disagree that they're necessary. If the second, make an argument that there's a negative connotation, because I don't see it. Or propose a rephrasing of the material that doesn't have negative connotations in your opinion. Please, though, don't keep switching arguments without engaging about content.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

We agree on something!

In this edit, DLE moved some stuff that's far too specific for the lead to what he/she appropriately calls the "ghetto" of the criticism section. I have to say that I concur with this edit, for reasons stated in previous sentence.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping track of the changes in the article Alf.laylah.wa.laylah but there's no need to document each one in the TP unless there's an issue to be discussed. Thank you. Gaba (talk) 02:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
You're super welcome Gaba_p, but everything's so contentious right now I think it's best to have a talk page section open for each edit just in case it's necessary.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

FYI

I've filed a BLP/N report about the deteriorating state of this article. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

I propose replacing the phrase:

"...is incorrect and dismissed as such by the scientific community."
with:
"...is refuted by the scientific community's finding that the age of the Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years."

This would alleviate the problems voiced above about using the word "incorrect" in Wikipedia's voice, plus by adding the portion about the actual age, we can include the link to the relevant article for interested readers. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I dont think the specific age is included in any of the current sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Providing an approximate date is good suggestion; certainly there ought to be a consensus within a billion years or so.--John Foxe (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
4.54 billion years old with an uncertainty of less than 1 percent.http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html Theroadislong (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Not a fan of "refuted by the scientific community's finding..." The age of the Earth does not need such qualification in this article. The incongruity of Ham's idea of a the age of the Earth makes giving the age in X.XX BILLION years largely irrelevant. The fact that the Earth is not 6,000 years old should be stated simply and as a matter of fact. - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The scientific community's finding? No, that's not quite right.

"All the observations that have ever been made are consistent with an Age of the Earth that is not consistent with Ken Ham's beliefs."


would be fine.

Or the present wording.

jps (talk) 23:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

  • I oppose this proposal. The age of the earth is a fact as much as it roundness is. We don't say "the flatness of the Earth is refuted by the scientific community" just because some idiots claim it's flat still today. We state facts as facts. Regards. Gaba (talk) 04:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

What evidence do you have to make your assertion about the age of the earth? The Scientific Community is a very vague term. I think you need to be balanced and show specifically how many people are in the "Old Earth Scientific Community" and how many people are in the "Young Earth Scientific Community". That is why I provided the poll numbers above from Pew Research, the NCSE and Harris Poll, and the Gallup poll. This is what people use who are interested in truth. Are you interested in truth or propaganda? Seriously..What is it going to be? Truth or Propaganda. If you want Wikipedia to be propaganda, then you go right ahead and avoid those poll numbers that I have provided you. Create a "Scientific Community" that is a figment of your imagination. That is what I would call propaganda. Let's be specific. After all, what does 46% of the population believe? I suppose to you we are just all ignorant underachievers. If you believe Doctors are stupid, then you have absolutely have no interest in reality. What is your reality? I know that you are trying to hang onto the way things used to be, but the slow and gradual processes mentality is over. Rapid and Catastrophic process are responsible for the conditions that we live in today. As a Biblical Young Earth Creationist like Ken Ham, I find what we observe today is exactly what you would expect to see given that The Bible is true. Isn't this a page about a Biblical Young Earth Creationist? Yet you do not want to have one participate in the CREATION of this page. That is why you are not interested in the secular poll numbers I provided because these poll numbers show that many scientists would have to be Biblical Young Earth Creationists. Do whatever you want? If you want the truth, then just have a look at the polls. Otherwise, this page really is irrelevant isn't it? I suppose this is another irrelevant supposed "WALLOFTEXT", and you will censor it just like you blocked my previous Talk Page Posts. What kind of Talk Page is this anyway, when only a select few people can talk? That is reminiscent of the dark ages. Lampstand49 (talk) 05:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

"truth" has nothing to do with it - its what reliably published sources that represent the mainstream of current academic thought say. And they say Ham is not only not even playing in the right state as the ball park, he is not even on a continent in the same hemisphere. We follow their lead. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

They? Do you mean those with higher education? Who are they? What is the breakdown? Who are these scientist that you include in your "Scientific Community"? I am not talking about The "Scientific Community", but I am talking about your "Scientific Community". These are two completely different groups. What percentage of the population? That would be great information to know. Well, I gave you some poll numbers about College Graduates. Lampstand49 (talk) 05:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

"they" is the reliably published sources that represent the current mainstream academic views. You can keep kicking this very dead horse and keep getting nowhere. but I recommend that you just accept that Hams views are going to be presented as the wingnut fringe claims they are and move on. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

What would you do without wingnuts? They are very useful. Give them a little tap, then they practically tighten themselves! It is the very fringe that makes a Persian rug beautiful. Is 46% of the country fringe? If that's the case, then where is the rug? It sure has a lot of fringe. Did you know that I am not trying to get anywhere on here? What's the point. I am just letting you know that this page is not balanced propaganda. What's more. It is not even truthful. :) Lampstand49 (talk) 06:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Virtually, every scholar throughout history has known that the earth is round. Evolutionist Stephen J. Gould commended the most definitive work by Jeffrey Burton Russell about this myth. Here is Evolutionist Stephen J. Gould's quote: "“There never was a period of ‘flat earth darkness’ among scholars (regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now). Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the earth’s roundness as an established fact of cosmology.” Numerous theologians by the tens of thousands throughout history even in the medieval period are on record that the earth is round. Here is a quote by Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274)Summa Theologica/Theologiae "The Physicist proves the earth to be round by one means, the astronomer by another: for the latter proves this by means of mathematics, e.g. by the shapes of eclipses, or something of the sort; while the former proves it by means of physics, e.g. by the movement of heavy bodies towards the centre, and so forth.” Even Barack Obama perpetuates this myth, he should know better because he went to Harvard just like Stephen J. Gould. Check this out Barack Obama perpetuating the flat earth myth at Prince George's Community College. Then, fast forward to about 28 minutes. You should love this section of the video on the internet! President Obama Visits Prince George's Community College. Lampstand49 (talk) 06:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Gaba and jps. Facts are facts they should be presented unequivocally as such. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
As long as you say the position is a "scientific consensus," I have no problem; but there can be no proof of the "facts" asserted anymore than there can be proof that that the earth was created yesterday or that the earth has always existed. It's an assertion of belief, incapable of proof. We can't prove that the world hasn't always existed; we just proffer a scientific consensus that it hasn't.--John Foxe (talk) 11:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


jps, TheRedPenOfDoom, MrBill3 at this point I believe we should WP:DENY Lamp any more recognition. The consensus is clear.

John Foxe applying Postulatism as you propose means means every scientific fact is "an assertion of belief". We don't go around attributing every scientific fact to the scientific community. Science is falsifiable, religious nonsense is not. Regards. Gaba (talk) 12:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that science is falsifiable. Origins are not falsifiable and therefore not "science" in the normal meaning of that word.--John Foxe (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
That's a ludicrous contention with which no serious expert agrees. jps (talk) 03:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I mean that neither creationism nor evolution are falsifiable.--John Foxe (talk) 22:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
No, you are wrong. Evolution is indeed falsifiable, creationism by definition is not. Regards. Gaba (talk) 01:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Certainly the vast majority of scientists would consider my opinion incorrect.--John Foxe (talk) 02:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Should this even be in the lede?

Passing by and read the current lead. In my opinion the last sentence is unnecessary, since we´ve already stated that he is a YEC, with wikilink. That scientific consensus disagree with YEC is not notable for Ken Ham per se (at least not lead-wise). He is notable for AiG, C.M. and being on tv more than most other YEC:s. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

That's an excellent point, Gråbergs Gråa Sång. We are talking about a BLP here and the recent addition to the lede that the subject is "incorrect" about his young Earth theory really isn't in keeping with nearly all of the other Creationist BLPs on Wikipedia. Lest anyone think I'm trying to defend the beliefs of Ken Ham, please take notice that I am a non-theist who firmly believes in the evidence that the Earth is 4.5+ billions years old. That being said, I took a look just now at all the other Creationist BLPs in the category, and found the following:
  • Thomas G. Barnes - no mention in the lede that science disagrees with the subject.
  • Vine Deloria, Jr. - no mention in the lede that science disagrees with the subject.
  • Robert V. Gentry - no mention in the lede that science disagrees with the subject.
  • Duane Gish - no mention in the lede that science disagrees with the subject.
  • John Hartnett (physicist) - no mention in the lede that science disagrees with the subject.
  • Tim LaHaye - no mention in the lede that science disagrees with the subject.
  • John D. Morris - no mention in the lede that science disagrees with the subject.
  • Nancy Pearcey - no mention in the lede that science disagrees with the subject.
  • Jonathan Sarfati - no mention in the lede that science disagrees with the subject.
  • Monty White - no mention in the lede that science disagrees with the subject.
  • Carl Wieland - no mention in the lede that science disagrees with the subject.
  • Kent Hovind - the lede mentions his "views are contradicted by scientific evidence"
  • Henry M. Morris - the lede mentions his "conclusions have been disputed by many in the mainstream scientific community"
Thus, out of 13 BLPs, only two mention in the lede that science disagrees with the subject, and only mildly at that. The fact that science disagrees with Ken Ham was only recently added (10 days ago with this edit here with the edit summary "context in lead", although the same information does not appear in the body of the article that it is purportedly summarizing). Are there good reasons for why 40% of the lede of Ham's BLP should contain material like this, stating that this claims are wrong, when the majority of Creationist BLPs do not and remaining two only make mild mention that the scientific community disputes it? Wouldn't this article be in better accord with with Wikipedia's norms if we moved the new material out of the lede and down to the "Position on age of the Earth" section in the article body, and included a link therein for the Age of the Earth article? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
WP:BLP states "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." WP:NPOV says "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" WP:LEAD "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." Clearly what he is notable for is his controversial advocacy of an utter fringe position and the reaction thereto. It needs to be presented in the lead. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Judging by their Wikipedia articles, it appears that Kent Hovind and Henry Morris are better known for this kind of silly Creationist fringe thinking. Both have much larger "criticism" sections than the Ham BLP, with Hovind's material being substantially more developed than the BLP at issue, yet their lede's say far less about science disagreeing with them. To be consistent, shouldn't we move more material into the article body and beef it up (no pun intended), then add a proportionate statement back to the lede to the effect of "Ham's claims are contradicted by scientific evidence" or "Ham's claims are disputed by the scientific community", etc.? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
"Ham's claims are contradicted by scientific evidence" might be a good summary statement for the lede. I would recommend beefing up the criticism section first and then looking to see if the lede is a decent summary. jps (talk) 03:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
If "consistency" is the rationale, then policy thing to do would be to have the lead sections of other fringers who flagrantly flout science be more clear in their identification of being nonmainstream positions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Change the others to match what was recently inserted here, so that this one can then be in the norm? That doesn't seem consistent with neutral BLP-oriented policy. Honestly, that sounds more POV purpose driven, as if the key point of their BLP ledes should now be to identify their flagrant science flouting. I think Creationism is ridiculous, but it's clear to me that it's not good Wikipedia writing to declare someone is "incorrect" in the lede of their BLP for their misguided views. Can you point out any other BLP on Wikipedia that does that? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 12:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to agree with TheRedPenOfDoom. Watering down hard facts to accommodate WP:FRINGE views should not be our goal, if those other articles do not reflect the facts clearly then those are the ones that should be changed, not this one. Regards. Gaba (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
@AzureCitizen: I see nothing in BLP that in any way suggests that people who are notable for advocating fringe ideas should not clearly be identified as advocating fringe ideas and indicating how fringe those ideas are. Can you point to where you are seeing such guidance? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
@Gaba p: We are not "accommodating fringe views" by changing the lede to say that "Ham's claims are contradicted by science" or "disputed by the scientific community" instead of saying that he's incorrect. Can you point out a single BLP on Wikipedia where the lede says the subject's misguided views are "incorrect"? AzureCitizen (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
@TheRedPenOfDoom: WP:BLP isn't going to speak directly to an issue like that. Borrowing your language, a fair response would be "is there anything in BLP that in any way suggests that people who are notable for advocating fringe ideas should be identified as being incorrect in the lede of their biographical article?" AzureCitizen (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, there is. BLP states "Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability (V) No original research (NOR)" and the WP:NPOV policy clearly states "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." I am not sure how much more obvious than the lines directly from the first paragraph of each policy we could get.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Nothing quoted suggests that the notions of living people ought to be labeled "incorrect." The phrases "high degree of sensitivity" and "without bias" rather suggests the reverse.--John Foxe (talk) 16:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
@TheRedPenOfDoom: You seem to be saying we're actually obliged by WP:BLP and WP:NPOV to state in the lede that Ham's claim that the Earth is 6,000 years old is "incorrect". If that's true, there should be plenty of BLPs on Wikipedia following your policy; BLPs where the subject has fringe views, and the lede says their claims are "incorrect" or "wrong", etc. Can you show us one? Regards, 16:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
What part of "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views" can you possibly be reading and interpreting as "We should not be presenting the views of the mainstream science"? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Nobody here has been arguing that we should not be presenting the views of the mainstream science. Everyone here is okay with including a statement in the lede to the effect of "Ham's claims are contradicted by science" or "disputed by the scientific community", similar to other Creationist BLPs in kind. The real issue is over the recent insertion of the word "incorrect". Are Ham's claims about the age of the Earth incorrect? Of course they are, but that's not the point. The real dispute here is whether or not it is in keeping with Wikipedia norms to unequivocally state in the lede of a BLP that a subject's views are "incorrect". You've stated that we are required to do so by WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, but you can't point to a single instance of that anywhere else on Wikipedia. What would you suggest we do to resolve this dispute? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
If you want to start a formal RfC to see if there is a consensus that there is any policy basis why we should be not be identifying incorrect claims as incorrect, feel free. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I will write up something shortly. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
And Ham himself is out there loudly proclaiming his disbelief in the science so there is no "sensitivity" issues that would prevent that from being addressed in the lead. Its not as if it is something he said once in private that was accidentally overheard. That is, in fact, precisely why he is notable at all. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, as suggested, I've written up a draft RfC. Does this accurately (and neutrally) present the question? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

(This is a draft write-up for an RfC. Please do not respond to this RfC until it has been listed)

The subject of this BLP is Ken Ham, a young-Earth creationist who is well known for claiming that the Earth is only ~6,000 thousands of years old. This claim is incorrect; it is a well accepted scientific fact that the Earth is billions of years old. There is no dispute on this point, and there is also general consensus here that Ham's BLP should contain material informing the reader that Ham's fringe claims are disputed by the scientific community and/or contradicted by scientific evidence, in keeping with other BLPs on well known young-Earth creationists. A difference of opinion, however, has arisen on whether the lede of this BLP should additionally state, as a point of fact, that Ham's claims are "incorrect," as BLPs do not normally contain assertions in the lede that a subject's views or claims are "incorrect", "wrong", "erroneous", etc. An RfC was suggested to help resolve the matter. The question for this RFC is:
In addition to stating that scientific consensus disputes and/or contradicts Ham's young-Earth claims, should the lede also factually state that his claims are "incorrect"?
Please support, oppose, or comment if you wish to participate. (Signature)

(Please do not respond to this RfC at this time. The text has been entered above for editing and/or adjustment.) AzureCitizen (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this presents the question understandably nor very neutrally. First of all, why is the presumption of the question that it is necessary at all to state anything about scientific consensus in the lede? I am not a particular fan of that Wikipedia-favorite term, and yet it is assumed that the lede should have attribution to a nebulous "scientific consensus" somewhat in contravention of WP:ASSERT. Also, you put "incorrect" in quotation marks. Does this mean that the RfC is solely about this adjective? What about synonyms for the adjective? "wrong", "contrary to fact", "off by six orders of magnitude", etc.... jps (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
On your first point, I'm not quite sure I understand you. Are you saying we shouldn't say anything in the lede that science disputes Ham's claims? Or is it just the word "consensus" that you have a problem with, in which case we should swap that word out? With regard to the second item, the RfC is on whether or not the lede should contain an unequivocal assertion (as a specific point of fact) that the subject's claims are wrong, erroneous, etc. I'm not sure it's necessary to expand the question to include synonyms for "incorrect" such as "contrary to fact" and others, but we can explore it. In what manner and phrasing do you recommend the question be asked? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Should the lead specifically describe Ham's position that the earth is 6000 years old as "incorrect" (or similar wording) or is such a description inappropriate for the lead of an article about a living person.
I'd suggest before framing the question just this way that you make sure Ham's actually said somewhere that the earth's 6000 years old; perhaps he'd be willing to step back a few thousand more. Sounds like a nonsensical difference when we're kicking around billions of years; but when I listened to the Ham-Nye debate, it was Nye using the number 6,000, not Ham.--John Foxe (talk) 01:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay, how about an even shorter hybrid version, as follows below? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Should the lead specifically describe Ham's young-Earth claim as "incorrect" (or use a similar word such as "wrong", "erroneous", etc.)?

Yes this should be in the lead. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Query: Why can't we just say, "Ham's young-Earth estimates for the age of the Earth are off by approximately six orders of magnitude"? What's controversial about such a statement? jps (talk) 04:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

As I see it, it´s enough that the lead states that Ham is YEC, as it does. The lead of THAT article covers this well. Let the body of this article elaborate on Hams specific YEC-ism, and the reactions to it. I guess what bugs me is that the current lead-writing "He´s a YEC who´s wrong about the age of the earth" is to me like "He´s a christian who believes in God". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
WP:JARGON, to me, seems relevant. Most people known nothing about creationism, let alone the different subsections of that movement. "YEC" ought to be defined when it is first mentioned, in my opinion. This is a lot more obscure than "Christian". The statement is more akin to me to "He's a Trinitarian who holds that God is three persons." jps (talk) 12:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
A point, certainly. I don´t think young-Earth creationist is "intrinsically technical", but reasonable people may disagree (you just did). How about this for lead, then? "Kenneth Alfred "Ken" Ham (born 20 October 1951) is the president of Answers in Genesis (AiG) and the Creation Museum.[3] He is a young-Earth creationist[1] who believes the universe to be about 6 000 years old." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
My preference: "Kenneth Alfred "Ken" Ham (born 20 October 1951) is the president of Answers in Genesis (AiG) and the Creation Museum.[3] He is a young-Earth creationist[1] who believes the universe to be about a million times younger than it is." jps (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)that fails WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV to fully and correctly place his beliefs in their place in relation to the mainstream views. He is REALLY wrong and is pushing for his REALLY WRONG ideas to be taught in schools as fact. That is the only reason that he is in fact notable and needs to be in the lead.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Ham really is "REALLY wrong and is pushing for his REALLY WRONG ideas to be taught in schools", but Wikipedia isn't the place to right great wrongs. WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV do not require that we put a statement in the lede of an article that a subject's wild claims are "incorrect", "wrong", etc. If we don't do things like this anywhere else in Wikipedia, why is Ham's situation so special that we need to do it here? Let's just remove the word "incorrect" and figure out a better way to express the point of what the scientific community thinks of Ham's nonsense. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I am not advocating that we use Wikipedia to "right any wrongs". I am advocating that the Wikipedia article about a person whose very notability is based upon the fact that he advocates for incorrect information and that the incorrect information be taught in schools should be accurately identified as advocating for incorrect information to be taught in schools. That's just straightforward NPOV and V. Mushing around those facts and disguising it under the euphemism "Young Earth Creationism" is where the inappropriate advocacy comes into play. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
One of the beautiful things about science is that it acknowledges that current consensus can change again. jps, you say "than it is", the article you link to says "best measurement" which is more humble, as it should be. We learn more things all the time. New attempt: "Kenneth Alfred "Ken" Ham (born 20 October 1951) is the president of Answers in Genesis (AiG) and the Creation Museum.[3] He is a young-Earth creationist[1] who believes the universe to be about 6 000 years old, contrary to the scientifically accepted age of ca 13,8 billion years." Then we could add a sentence, depending on sources, to say something like "Ham have gained significant attention advocating this view." Surely he has been both praised and critisized for it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't think what I wrote is any less humble than the article you are praising. The "best measurement" is just referring to the one with the smallest uncertainty. You are moving away from the point which is that Ken Ham is off by a factor of a million. I compared this earlier to someone who insisted that you had a height of one centimeter. It would surely be appropriate to write in an article about such a person, "He believes in an average height of humans which is about one hundred times smaller than what it is." Trying to attribute the age of the universe to "scientific acceptance" is as problematic as it would be to attribute the average height of humans to "scientific acceptance". It does not explain the facts of the matter (the fact is that Ham is off by a factor of a million or so, and that's simply an error, it's not an argument). jps (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, we disagree, but that can happen. I think my latest suggestion (TRPoD had a good point) makes it clear enough that Ham is way off (abour 2,3 million times off, I make it), and I prefer "scientifically accepted" to "than it is", in my opinion it´s better language in this context. BTW, I was praising science, not Age of the universe. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

What do we disagree about? Why do you prefer "scientifically accepted"? Do you have any reliable sources that contradict the fact that Ham is simply off by a factor of a million or so? (Note, I'm talking about an order of magnitude estimate here. Factors of 2 or 3 are irrelevant to the point -- thus the "about".) Unless you have a source which shows that there is controversy, we are commanded by WP:ASSERT to simply state the fact that he is incorrect and I can say that your insistence is a direct contravention of our WP:NPOV policy. Sorry. jps (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a simple case of someone being wrong about a straightforward measurement. If I ask you the question, "How large is the circumference of the Earth?" and you respond, "12 meteres" we would say, "I'm sorry, your belief that the Earth has a circumference of 12 meteres is off by a factor of one million." If you were known for advocating such a belief, surely it would not be a problem for the Wikipedia biography to state, even in the lede, "Gråbergs Gråa Sång believes that the circumference of the Earth is about one million times smaller than it actually is." Even though our page on the Earth admits that we don't know the circumference of the Earth to arbitrary precision! jps (talk) 14:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it's not a simple case of someone being wrong about a straightforward measurement. Ham is wrong and his claims are off by more than a factor of a million, but the analogies to humans being one centimeter in height or the Earth being 12 meters in diameter don't work very well. In those situations, every layperson would immediately recognize how nuts that would be and every day human experience would quickly invalidate those claims. When it comes to the age of the Earth, however, many scientifically illiterate human beings do not readily perceive the vast ocean of time that exists between the time the Earth formed and the present day. For thousands of years, people have believed that the Earth was only thousands of years old because that's what it seemed like. Fortunately, scientific advances in the last century or two have peeled back that layer of the onion and revealed the Earth is actually billions of years old. Gråbergs Gråa Sång isn't arguing that Ham's claims aren't off by a factor of millions; I think they are just saying that our choice of words here is important in how we address this in the lede of a BLP. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
What policy can you point to which distinguishes "everyday human experience" as a basis for when we should simply WP:ASSERT a fact and when we should cast it as the opinion of "scientific consensus"? I understand that not everyone is familiar with how to make a measurement, but then, not everyone is familiar with how to use a ruler either. We don't write Wikipedia on the basis of what readers do or do not understand. We write it on the basis of what the reliable sources say. If you have a source which can distinguish between one kind of measurement and another, please let me know. Otherwise, I think you're making a distinction on the basis of your own gut original research about what is "obvious" and what is not. jps (talk) 16:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
What I said above has nothing to do with Wikipedia's policy prohibition against incorporating original research into an article; I was simply explaining why your analogies about human height and global circumference aren't readily applicable to common layperson understanding and experience. On the issue of WP:ASSERT, if we were discussing edits to the lede of the article Age of the Earth, we wouldn't say "It is the scientific community's opinion that the age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years..." (that would violate WP:ASSERT). Instead, that article rightly says "The age of the Earth is..." etc. The situation here on Ham's BLP is different; nothing in WP:ASSERT requires that we state in the lede that Ham's claims are "incorrect", and if you look at other BLPs, it just isn't done. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Where is there a policy or guideline about considering the common layperson understanding and experience in Wikipedia? Why is Ham's BLP different from the Age of the Earth? Surely I agree that we are not required to say he is incorrect, but certainly we aren't forbidden from stating as such and it is problematic to attribute the Age of the Earth to the opinions of scientists rather than plain fact as WP:ASSERT points out (and doesn't contextualize). jps (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I haven't said anything about Wikipedia policies specifying common layperson understanding and experience. My comments above were in reference to your choice in analogies and the way in which they do not mesh well with common layperson understanding... it would obviously strike a layperson as being incorrect if someone claimed humans are one centimeter tall or that the Earth was 12 meters in circumference, but the age of the Earth is much harder to discern for someone who is judging by what they feel seems right to them (in the absence of science explaining the true reality). With regard to the Age of the Earth article versus Ken Ham's BLP, they are different in that one is an article on how old the Earth is and the other the biography of a living person who claims the Earth is ~6,000 years old. In the former, it should clearly be WP:ASSERTed as a fact that the Earth is 4.54 billion year's old; in the latter, there is strong disagreement here on whether it is relevant and appropriate for a BLP to outright state in the lede that the subject's beliefs, views, or claims are "incorrect", "wrong", "erroneous", etc. No other BLPs do that on Wikipedia, and the word "incorrect" was only recently inserted into the article here, hence the debate. Wider review by the community through an RfC might be the only way this gets sorted out, be it one way or the other. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
what a layperson does or does not understand or experience is irrelevant. The two scenarios are plainly comparable. The issue is that we can simply WP:ASSERT how far off Ham is in his belief. That's not a problem at all. If you think it is, cite the policy that it violates. jps (talk) 22:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
jps, If I understand you correctly, we disagree what is preferable to say in WP:s voice.
  • Kenneth Alfred "Ken" Ham (born 20 October 1951) is the president of Answers in Genesis (AiG) and the Creation Museum.[3] He is a young-Earth creationist[1] who believes the universe to be about a million times younger than it is.
  • Kenneth Alfred "Ken" Ham (born 20 October 1951) is the president of Answers in Genesis (AiG) and the Creation Museum.[3] He is a young-Earth creationist[1] who believes the universe to be about 6 000 years old, contrary to the scientifically accepted age of ca 13,8 billion years.
These variants don´t contradict each other, and I don´t read my version as less straightforward or more lacking in NPOV. To me, they both make it clear that "he is REALLY wrong". "Scientifically accepted" is not a weak statement, in my opinion. I know of no WP:RS that "contradict the fact that Ham is simply off by a factor of a million or so", my version says the same thing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I never said the two statements contradict each other. Rather I am pointing out that the phrasing "scientifically accepted" is an attribution to a group of people making a measurement while the phrasing "it is" simply states the fact of the measurement. See WP:ASSERT. Why do you prefer to attribute rather than state? Explain *why* you prefer your version. It's not good enough to just say that you do and leave it at that. I prefer my version because it is in line with WP:ASSERT. I don't have any understanding for why you prefer your version. jps (talk) 16:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I think I´ve reached the end of my line in this discussion. I don´t clearly see your asserting/stating difference here, I´m stating that it´s "scientifically accepted", and that´s as good as it gets in science, since proven is for math (and possibly religion). The differences are small enough that we are left with personal preference, what do we feel serves our readers best? And there we differ, you and I. See you around! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
So you think the problem of induction means we can't state plainly that the age of the Earth is some million times greater than that which Ken Ham advocates? I really don't understand. I don't know where this "proof" idea is coming from, but I didn't write that either. The point is that the age of the universe is a measurement. jps (talk)

Okay, it's time to get things back on track. As it's become obvious in the thread above that we actually do not have a clear consensus on exactly how we should state that science contradicts and refutes Ham's young-Earth claims, it would be better to allow passing-by editors who visit the RfC to contribute additional opinions on that for the group to consider. Here is a revised version which covers both but is worded more simply:

The subject of this BLP is Ken Ham, a young-Earth creationist who is well known for his claim that the Earth is only thousands of years old. This claim is incorrect - it is a well accepted scientific fact that the Earth is billions of years old - and there is no dispute here on this point. However, differences of opinion have arisen among editors as to what degree the lede of a BLP article should state that science the scientific community contradicts and/or refutes the subject's claims, and whether or not the lede should directly state as a point of fact that the subject's claims are "incorrect". The two questions for this RfC are:
1. To what extent should the lede state that science the scientific community contradicts and/or refutes Ham's young-Earth claims?
2. Should the lead specifically state that Ham's young-Earth claims are "incorrect"?
(Please do not respond to this RfC at this time. The text has been entered above for editing and/or adjustment.)

Does anyone see any problems with this formulation? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

It would probably be helpful to set up a user page and provide some examples of the various wordings/inclusions/exclusions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Good idea. I've set up some examples here. Please feel free to add more or make suggestions. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I don't believe "science" contradicts Ham's claim, only scientists do. (Likewise, "history" doesn't declare Stalin guilty of genocide, historians do.)--John Foxe (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
If you think an exact science like geology and a "social science" like history are comparable John Foxe, then I'm afraid you fundamentally don't understand the concept of Falsifiability. Science does not simply contradict Ham's claims, it irrefutably disproves it beyond any conceivable doubt. Regards. Gaba (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I disagree; and I have some pretty good secular support for that opinion in the The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) by Thomas Kuhn. (By the way—and almost totally off topic—I consider history a branch of literature and don't believe there's any science at all in "social science.")--John Foxe (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Actually, measurements are what contradict Ham's claim. jps (talk) 22:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I don't think the history analogy works well either but since the article has already been using the "scientific community" from before the lockdown, we can swap out "science" with "scientific community" with little to no impact on the question the RfC is trying to solicit input for. I've amended the text accordingly; does anyone have any other objections before we move this process along? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

This wording in no way addresses my concerns I listed about the previous way you constructed the RfC. It includes all the same problems, and, now that it is trying to attribute the plain measurement of the Age of the Earth/Universe to the "scientific community" rather than just pointing out that it is a straightforward measurement, we are going ever further away from a neutral presentation. Sorry, but no, this is not a good formulation at all. jps (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The existing article already uses the phrase "scientific community", so I'm afraid you're out of luck there. If you think the RfC is not neutrally worded, propose an alternate version to show what you think a neutral presentation would be. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
The subject of this BLP is Ken Ham, a young-Earth creationist who is well known for his belief that the Earth is only some thousands of years old. This belief is inconsistent with the measured Age of the Earth - and there is no dispute here on this point. However, differences of opinion have arisen among editors as to what degree the lede of a BLP article should point this fact out and/or remark on the fact that the scientific community has refuted Ham's claims. The two questions for this RfC are:
1. To what extent should the lede point out that the measurements of the age of the Earth contradict Ham's young-Earth claims?
2. Should the lead specifically identify Ham's beliefs about the age of the Earth as being inconsistent with the measured age?
jps (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad you took the time to state your own version of what you think would be neutral. However, it appears you're trying to change the focus of this RfC to be what you want this dispute to be about rather than the actual disputed article content at hand. Edit warring and debate erupted over a lede that states "is incorrect and dismissed as such by the scientific community", thus it has become necessary to have an RfC on to what extent the lede should state the scientific community's dismissal of Ham' claims and whether or not it should specifically use the word "incorrect". If you want to argue that a better way to phrase the lede would be to focus on how measurements of the Earth contradict Ham's young-Earth claim, you're free to do that during the RfC itself, but your formulation of the questions moves away from disputed text at issue. Do you want to take another stab at this? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

No, you're the one who doesn't understand what the conflict is about. The conflict is plainly not over specific wording which is simply what was edited in at the last edit request. It is over what I'm describing, namely that there are certain creationists/creationist sympathizers who did not think the article could simply WP:ASSERT the fact that the age of the Earth is what it is. Simply read back through the archives. Now, you and Gråbergs Gråa Sång may have a slightly different spin on the conflict, arguing that a particular turn of phrase is perhaps not editorially sound, but as far as I know no one is wedded to any particular word per se so the attempt to cast the dispute as one over the word "incorrect" is a straw horse. So, you want to try again? jps (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
My interest is piqued by your statement that based on your knowledge none of the editors here are wedded to the word "incorrect" and it's a straw horse, which implies there is no objection to it's removal anymore. Obviously, if that's true, there is no need to include an RfC question as to whether or not Ham's claims should be described as "incorrect". We can easily put that to the test so that we can clear up that part of the perceived dispute right now. I'll remove that word as an interim step and include an edit summary inviting anyone who disagrees to please revert. If nobody objects, problem solved. If anyone wants us to keep saying Ham is "incorrect", it's obviously a continued bone of contention in the RfC. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I added an explanation as to why it is so dismissed. jps (talk) 20:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I see you've twice added "because it is six orders of magnitude lower than the measured age of the Earth[4][5][6][7]" but have been twice reverted. Technically, that information isn't included in the cited sources and it increases to more than 50% of the lede talking about this point about Ham's silly young-Earth claim. Compared to Kent Hovind and Henry M. Morris, it's really kind of undue. Can you re-state your case why it's necessary? I don't recall other editors in the thread above expressing support for adding material like that. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

It is in the sources. It's what he is most notable for. Go ahead and explain why he is wrong in fewer words, that's fine with me. I don't appreciate fly-by-night reverts who aren't active on the talkpage, though. That's unreasonable. jps (talk) 22:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that if Unscintillating is going to keep reverting, he needs to join in here on the Talk Page. Just don't like seeing a new edit war erupting the day after the article's lock protection expired. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. I took a crack at the amount of space problem you mention, in any case. jps (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
In the essay WP:BRD, the D follows the first R.  I don't agree that Ham is "most notable" for being six orders of magnitude off.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for joining the conversation. What is Ham "most notable" for, in your opinion? jps (talk) 23:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Two of us have been trying to keep the article page stable, but you are restoring your proposal for the article quickly, between 2 and 11 minutes for each restoration.  Five times today you have added this idea to the article, but never have you tried to initiate the D in WP:BRD.  You've claimed that some of the sources listed support the metric, but you've not removed the ones that don't, and in this last reply you do not explain your claim that this metric is that which is most notable about Ham.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are on about. "Metric"? "Stable"? "This idea"? I have been having a fruitful conversation with AzureCitizen about how to get the article to explain why scientists dispute Ham's beliefs, and all I see here is a rather confused lack of coherent discussion after a torrent of reverts done by yourself while I'm trying to make sure the lede explains what exactly is incorrect about Ham's arguments. Please take a minute to formulate your thoughts and then explain what you are trying to say. Do you think it is not correct that Ham is off by six orders of magnitude? The sources on the page indicate that he is. What exactly do you think my idea is introducing that is "new"? jps (talk) 01:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I've restored the previous consensus version and I'd recommend nobody changes it without getting consensus here first. That version was agreed by no less than 6 editors if I remember correctly. If an RfC is necessary then we should agree on a very simple wording and just do it. Regards. Gaba (talk) 02:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I think it would help if we could get an idea of the motivation of those people who want to remove the word, "incorrect". Why is this important to you? One argument seems to be of the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS variety. I'm not too keen on that as I don't think the biographies of other creationists are particularly exemplary and worthy of emulation. Another argument seems to be that this is a WP:BLP. But I'd like to see that one fleshed out. What part of the the biographies of living persons policy is supposed to be the issue? Frankly, I can understand where the science-skeptics are coming from more than those who claim to agree that his ideas are at odds with the general consensus but don't want us to tell the reader what that consensus is in the lede. jps (talk) 03:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Left last night for dinner and an evening out of fun, when I got in late I checked the site and saw that things were back to square one. This is okay; the process of resolving this can play out on its own timeline, no worries. With regard to asking people what their motivations are, it's usually not a good area to shift the focus of a discussion to that area and people will likely sense that if they candidly state what their motivations are, their position and arguments may be treated differently by editors who will then want to emphasize their opponent's motivations over their opponent's arguments. If people want to share their motivations with you, better for them to do it on a personal Talk Page of their own volition. Make sense?
Okay, before we get back to working on the text of the RfC to bring in the opinions of new editors, perhaps it would be useful to conduct a strawpoll to see what the current editor-participants think of the way "incorrect" continues to be used in the lede. We could gauge that interest as being in one of three categories: Keep the word "incorrect" in place, Remove the word "incorrect", or No opinion/Don't Care. Sound good? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It appears that you have moved on from your proposal to change the third sentence of the lede to read, "Ham's belief about the age of the Earth, based on his interpretation of the Bible, is too small by six orders of magnitude." as sourced by [11], [12], [13], and [14].  Unscintillating (talk) 13:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good to me AzureCitizen. Regards. Gaba (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Straw poll on "incorrect"

This is a strawpoll to see what the current editor-participants think with regard to whether or not "incorrect" should continue to be used in the lede. Please express your WP:!VOTE in the context of Keep the word "incorrect", Remove the word "incorrect", or No opinion if you have no opinion or simply don't care if it is retained or not. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Large discussion about science, proof, philosophy and the Flying Spaghetti Monster
To clarify: we do not credit the term "incorrect" to "Science" or any other entity, we simply assert the fact that he is incorrect. Regards. Gaba (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
You simply assert? On what basis can you assert at Wikipedia without an authority?--John Foxe (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
on the basis of policy and the overwhelming mainstream academic views. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
We WP:ASSERT using WP's own authoritative voice just like we do on the Earth article: Earth formed approximately 4.54 billion years ago... Notice the lack of "scientific community" attribution there? That's because the age of the Earth is a fact and we should assert is as such. From WP:ASSERT:

The text of Wikipedia articles should not assert opinions but should assert facts. When a statement is a fact (a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute) it should be asserted without prefixing it with "(Source) says that ...", and when a statement is an opinion (a matter which is subject to dispute) it should be attributed to the source that offered the opinion using inline-text attribution. In-text attribution to sources should be used where reliable sources disagree, not where editors disagree. Note that citations are a different matter: adding a footnoted citation to a fact or an opinion is always good practice. The text in the article, however, should mention the source only if the matter being described is an opinion, not a fact.

(bold added) Do you contest that the age of the Earth is an opinion or that there is a "serious dispute" about its value? Regards. Gaba (talk) 22:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I believe in a youngish earth, so I don't share the consensus of the scientific community that the earth is billions of years old (in fact,three billion years older today than when I was a child.) There's certainly no "serious dispute" about what the scientific community believes about the age of the earth; but in my opinion, they're wrong.--John Foxe (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Well there you go, we agree that the age of the Earth is not an opinion and neither is its value in any way under a "serious dispute". The good thing about a scientific fact is that it couldn't care less about your opinion. So now that we've reached the conclusion that your belief in creationism is immaterial and WP policy is clear on this regard, can I trust you to change your vote? Regards. Gaba (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Since I've just given you my opinion about the age of the Earth, I don't understand why I should agree that it isn't an opinion. That the earth is billions of years old is the opinion of the scientific community, and I have no problem with that statement being part of this article. But I don't agree that the opinion of the scientific community is a fact. For one thing, the age of the earth is now given as more than twice the age it was at my birth. More importantly, as I said above, origins (creationist or evolutionist) aren't susceptible to proof. There's no way to prove that the universe wasn't created yesterday or that it hasn't always existed. Scientific consensus says that it wasn't and hasn't, but there's no way to prove those opinions false.--John Foxe (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
John Foxe: "There's no way to prove that the universe wasn't created yesterday or that it hasn't always existed." What do you mean "there's no way"? Of course there is, it's called science. This isn't a philosophy forum, this is WP and we don't edit under the presumption that everything is an "opinion" as your factual relativism seems to imply. A fact is a statement which can be proven. The age of the Earth being around the several billions figure can and indeed has been proven many many many times. Do you dispute this? Gaba (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Absolutely. The age of the earth is unprovable and will always be.--John Foxe (talk) 23:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Foxe is completely correct here but it's meaningless. Science does not deal with proofs, it deals with probabilities; proofs fall into the realm of mathematics and deductive logic. Science makes observations and logically induces conclusions from those observations and as the amount of data increases, our theories become more specific. It's true that there's no way to prove that the earth is 13.4byo; however, proof is not the standard. The difference between theories of a young earth and theories of an old earth is that theories of an old earth have a massive amount of evidential backing while young earthean ideas have absolutely none that meet rational standards of evidence. It's certainly possible that existence as we know it was created last Thursday and all of our memories were implanted by Xenu; it's also possible that apples will start floating tomorrow, but we don't devote time in a physics class to such absurdities until we have a reason to do so. Lots of odd ideas are technically possible, that doesn't mean that they're on equal footing with ideas that are both possible and confirmed through vigorous experimentation and observation. As much as a fact can be a fact, considering the limitations of induction, that the universe is billions of years old is a fact as much as and as evidenced as gravity itself. Noformation Talk 23:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
No, he is not correct and you are confused. Of course the age of the Earth can be proven the same way I can prove a given apple weights 0.2 Kg: you measure it. The fact that there exists a degree of uncertainty in any physical measure by no means implies that nothing can be proven. As I stated above, factual relativism is not how we operate, neither here in WP neither in the scientific world.
Lastly this "The age of the earth is unprovable and will always be" tells me you lack the minimum WP:COMPETENCE to edit anything science related. Regards. Gaba (talk) 01:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually that's exactly what it implies and you're out of your element here. In an epistemological context, proof has a very specific meaning: that the conclusion of an argument necessarily follows if its premises are true. Weighing an apple and getting a reading of 0.2gs is not a proof, it's a measurement. Here as an old talk.origins article on science that briefly discusses the difference in the first paragraph. See Euclid's theorem for some examples of proofs. If you think that I'm arguing in any way for factual relativism then you did not understand what I wrote above and I would be a pretty shitty biologist if I believed that. Noformation Talk 02:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
"you're out of your element here" not sure what that means but I'll assume it's nothing bad. Weighing an apple and getting a reading of 0.2gs is indeed a proof, it proves that apple weights 0.2gs plus/minus a given uncertainty. You are conflating the existence of a given inaccuracy inherent to any physical measurement with the impossibility to assign any degree of "truth" to a statement. Lastly: I've moved your comment out of my comment, please don't insert comments within comments, it makes it harder to follow a thread. Regards. Gaba (talk) 11:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
The problem here is much more simple: equivocation. You are using the word proof in the sloppy way that a layman uses it while I (and I assume Foxe) am using it the way that a scientist or philosopher would use it when addressing this subject (and I say this with recognition of your status as a physicist). It is rather astonishing to me that you have a PhD in physics and are not aware of this very common misuse of the word. Incidentally, it was in my first physics class that I was corrected on my misuse of the word. I do not know what you're referring to regarding my comment placement but I apologize if I accidentally placed it within yours. Noformation Talk 00:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Not at all, my use of the word proof is entirely within its definition. You are using it not in the way a scientist would use it but rather in the way someone trying to water down its meaning would (Foxe for example) to push an un-scientific agenda. The philosophical stance on weather we can ever be certain of anything is known as Cartesian doubt and has no place in the empirical sciences as being unfalsifiable. To quote Popper: "If you insist on strict proof (or strict disproof) in the empirical sciences, you will never benefit from experience, and never learn from it how wrong you are."[15]. Regards. Gaba (talk) 02:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
The claim that I'm watering the definition down is ironic as is using The Logic of Scientific Discovery as a counter example! Firstly, Popper uses the word proof multiple times in that book and I'm almost certain he uses it only in the formal sense which I am elucidating; he talks of proof in regards to Goldbach's Theorem, Kolmogorov's failed attempt at a proof of the axiom of continuity, and other mathematical and logical proofs. Secondly, assuming that by "watering down" you mean "making more ambiguous," I'm doing the exact opposite; I'm using a narrow definition such that it only applies to deductive processes, which is in line with the standard academic usage, while you are using a watered down definition that is more inclusive.
Note that I am in complete agreement with you and Popper on the matter of subjecting science to strict proof and am not at all attempting to disregard the very valid science upon which our measurements of the universe are based. I understand that creationists commonly use this word play in order to undermine science, this is why I started my OP with "Foxe is right, but it's meaningless." Foxe is right that by the epistemological standard of proof, the age of the universe is unprovable, but—and I'm simply repeating what I wrote originally—it's meaningless because the standard of science is not proof (basically exactly what your Popper quote said). This why I ended my OP with "that the universe is billions of years old is a fact as much as and as evidenced as gravity itself." In no way does this undermine science or provide validity for the absurdity that is YEC; it simply recognizes that science is limited in some fashion (again, in the same sense Popper discusses). Lastly, dictionaries do not generally promote first and foremost the academic usage of words, so providing that dictionary reference is only adding to my point: proof in such a loose context is how non-scientists use the term; when you see the term in a journal/textbook/white paper (with the exception of crank papers) it's virtually never to indicate proof in such a loose context. Noformation Talk 02:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Not sure what you find ironic, the quote is quite clear in it's meaning. By "watering down" I actually mean the exact opposite of what you describe. You are adhering to a particularly narrow interpretation of the word thus dismissing all other interpretations and stripping it of most its meaning, ie: you water it down. So to recap: Foxe is not right (you aren't either) and the age of the Earth is not unprovable; of course it is, just like the weight of an apple is. You are confusing "proof" with "unquestionable universal timeless truth". Lastly, dictionaries are what help us communicate, imagine if everybody had their own prefered definition of all words. You keep referring to how scientists act, are you around them much? I am. I'm a scientist and I'm around other scientists all the time. You know how we communicate? We don't have our own secret language, we use simple words (well, sometimes not so simple) taken from a plain old dictionary.
In any case, this has gone far too long and Jytdog is right pointing to WP:NOTFORUM. This is my last comment and I'm collapsing our discussion. If you want to comment further, please do so within the collapsed thread. Regards. Gaba (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
(throat clear) you guys, i know this is very exciting but WP:NOTFORUM - this is a straw poll not a debate on science. thanks. This dialogue should probably be hatted. Jytdog (talk)
You are right Jytdog. I've collapsed the discussion right after Foxe's vote. Regards. Gaba (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Advocacy of creationism is prima facie evidence of a lack of WP:COMPETENCE required to edit articles that have anything at all to do with scientific topics. I would suggest that therefore, User:John Foxe be no longer allowed to opine upon questions directly related to science. Since he has already been warned about WP:ARBPSCI by myself, we could ask for an injunction against him at WP:AE. jps (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Remove. Unnecessary to state he is "incorrect". Just stating he is a YEC is sufficient. Stating a faith-based opinion is incorrect should not be in a BLP. Bahooka (talk) 21:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep the word "incorrect". The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years... that is a fact. Ham may be sincere in his beliefs but he is incorrect. Theroadislong (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Remove the word "incorrect". The age of the Earth is 4.5 billion years and Ham's claims are obviously incorrect. In a BLP, however, it is highly unusual to prominently state in the lede that a subject's views are "incorrect" and there are no other BLP's that do this. At most, we should say that his claims are dismissed by the scientific community and leave it at that, similar to Wikipedia's BLPs on other well known creationists like Kent Hovind and Henry M. Morris. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  • If it is not retained then a statement as that his ideas are at odds with measurements ought to be included. jps (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep He is notable for his view on the age of the earth, so it makes sense, as per WP:FRINGE, that along with his claim to fame, that the scientific consensus is stated in plain and simple English in the lead, too, - namely, that his view on this is incorrect. And I want to add, that WP:FRINGE and WP:BLP do not contradict one another. That is a bit of a red herring being thrown around above. Jytdog (talk) 00:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep The notability of the subject is closely associated with his ideas about the age of the Earth. The fact that his ideas are incorrect is an important fact that should be asserted. Other BLP's on YEC proponents may need improvement that is not cause to omit important facts from this. FRINGE is clear on this and there is no contradiction of BLP, Ham's ideas of the age of the Earth are well known and reliably sourced, the fact they are wrong is important and accurate. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Remove The word incorrect. It isn't right in a BLP article and others on wikipedia do not do so. Still include what science says in the intro but incorrect is not necessary and unusual on wikipedia. There is no reason to mention it. "Dismissed by the scientific community" is enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.135.176.108 (talk) 04:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
    • BLP is not a white wash and does not in any way prohibit expressing the mainstream academic view. In fact BLP says we must adhere to NPOV which in turn states that we must present the subject in context- in context of the age of the earth, he is wrong. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep There are turtles all the way down. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 23:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Ham is incorrect, and that should be asserted in Wikipedia’s voice. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 14:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Note This article is subject to WP:BLP and only claims from reliable secondary sources mentioning Ham really are usable. He may be a loon, but unless a reliable source makes that claim, we can not use our own impeccable knowledge to add that to the BLP. I suspect most who read this, and read the wikilinked articles, will realize and understand that he has no scientific support, but that is for the reader to determine, not for us to bludgeon the reader with. There is a slope here -- as clearly we are treading on the intersection of orthogonal belief systems, and if we do it here where we are sure that we know the truth, what other categories will offer the same argument where we might even disagree that something is absolute truth? So we should only offer material specifically mentioning him in reliable sources, even if we "know" more than can be sourced -- the world will not end if we do not have this stuff in the lead, of anywhere on Wikipedia, in fact. Collect (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
You mean like the 4 sources footnoting the sentence? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom
Um -- the first is pure editorial content attacking a person - and is not usable for claims of fact per WP:RS and WP:BLP. The second only says Ham believes in the Ark, and scarcely mentions Ham at all (precisely twice -- once as "the Museum's founder" which doe not support the claim asserted at all, and the second as "started his own spin-off organization Answers in Genesis". The third is "Deception by Design" which appears on it face to be an attack piece, and not specifically about Ham as a person, in fact mentioning exactly twice en passant. The last is Grainger's tale of his own family, and is not a scholarly work, nor does it mention Ham except three times en passant - the work is not about Ham. Thus the "four footnotes" include none which meet the requirements of WP:BLP nor WP:RS. To make the claim in Wikipedia's voice requires strong sourcing which is about the person named, and none so far fall into that category. None of the four "sources" say he specifically is "incorrect" nor do they make the SYNTH that his beliefs are "dismissed by the scientific community" - unless a source makes the claim, we can not assert that the source makes the claim. Logic101. Now find a reliable secondary source about Ham making the claim and then it could be added, but SYNTH and misuse of sources is not the way to go. Collect (talk) 12:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Quoting Collect's comment of 10:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC), posted here: "It is not the task of Wikipedia to assert that people are wrong, or evil, or ugly, or anything else unless specific reliable sources make assertions and with the caveat that for living persons opinions must be specifically cited as opinion. The current sentence has (1) incorrect use of sources, (2) use of sources which do not support the claim as made, (3) makes assertions not in the sources (SYNTH in this case), and (4) treats the readers as people who cannot even be trusted to actually read wikilinked topics." Does anyone disagree with points (1), (2), or (3)? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with all 3 contentions, but, generally, I normally find Collect to be less-than-helpful at this project. jps (talk) 11:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Baiting statements are less-than-helpful and this thread has gotten off track several times already, so let's try to avoid going down that road again. Can you provide some rebuttal to the sourcing problems? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 12:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Collect's claims about sourcing are simply wrong. He tends to advocate for "nothing short of quotation" sourcing when he doesn't like the prose (I call it the BLP-SYNTH fallacy). I am happy to entertain arguments on the basis of aesthetics that the text is poorly chosen, but the fact that Ham is incorrect about the age of the Earth/Universie is just about the most impeccably sourced piece of information in the article. jps (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Off topic discussion
When you actually use the word “slope” in your slippery slope fallacy it kind of tips people off. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 02:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
My college background is in hard science (Physics), and I am by no means a "young earth creationist" so I do not know what your snark is intended to convey. I am a strong believer that where Wikipedia has a strong policy such as WP:BLP that we well ought to abide by it. Collect (talk) 12:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
My “snark” is intended to convey the fact that you have engaged in slippery slope fallacy. To attempt to rebut such an allegation you would typically explain why the labeling of a young earth creationist as “incorrect” really is a watershed moment for Wikipedia which will inevitably lead to calamity. Though, admittedly I would find your argument less than convincing since you have been shamelessly canvassed by AzureCitizen. [[16]] 76.107.171.90 (talk) 14:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I did not regard my position as being influenced in any way whatsoever by anyone at all. I have, in fact, voiced a similar position on BLPthis talk pages in the past in an RfC, and your snark that my opinion should be disregarded in any way here is simply an example of "argument by argument" (tm). It is not the task of Wikipedia to assert that people are wrong, or evil, or ugly, or anything else unless specific reliable sources make assertions and with the caveat that for living persons opinions must be specifically cited as opinion. The current sentence has (1) incorrect use of sources, (2) use of sources which do not support the claim as made, (3) makes assertions not in the sources (SYNTH in this case), and (4) treats the readers as people who cannot even be trusted to actually read wikilinked topics. If we have to tell readers exactly what to think, then this encyclopedia is not an encyclopedia at all but a primer for children. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)(emended Collect (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC) )
“"argument by argument" (tm)”? If you have to invent a fallacy then even you have to know that you’re grasping for straws.
Collect, we do not have to say “the world is regarded as being round by some members of the scientific community” any more than we have to say “water has never definitively been proven to be wet”. While I would personally prefer that we said something like “Ham’s claims have been disproven by modern science” (because I think it sounds more authoritative), if it’s between “incorrect” or nothing then “incorrect” is clearly the superior choice because it is factually true.
And please don’t try that “all the intelligent readers already know he’s wrong so there’s no need to point out that he’s wrong” argument. Every fringe-pusher and their uncle has already tried that tactic and it’s bullshit. We can’t just allow Wikipedia to be full of rubbish and assume that the smart readers will filter the fact from the fiction. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
And so you wish us to only have the WP:TRUTH in Wikipedia. I am not a "fringe pusher" and I find your position here to be demeaning of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. If you wish to post at AN/I for "CANVASSING" then do so - but belabouring your point here is not going to impress anyone much at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience seems to suggest that your interpretation of the rules in incorrect. I’m not championing my own “personal truth”. I’m indicating that Wikipedia is not obligated to ignore scientific truth where it offends someone’s sensibilities. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Read the linked comment a little more carefully before making accusations of canvassing, 76.107.171.90. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Are you joking? Denying that one is canvasing when one is in the actual act of canvasing does not in any way negate the fact that canvasing is taking place. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I did not canvass him to come here; I specifically asked him to respond on his Talk Page (not here) to get the benefit of his BLP-related knowledge, something he is well known for here on Wikipedia. I also asked him questions in a neutral fashion as I did not want him to prejudge the issue in giving me his candid advice. If Collect had told me that he thought BLP wasn't an issue here, I was planning on seriously re-evaluating my own position on the lede dispute. If you think this was instead really a ploy to get him to enter into the poll here (and to enter on one side of the dispute at that), re-read the comment again and reconsider WP:AGF. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
AzureCitizen, saying “I’m doing this for your own good” does not negate the act of drunkenly abusing one’s children. Similarly, declaring that you are not canvasing when that is precisely what you are doing does not in any way change the act that was performed. The FACT of the matter is that you induced Collect to come here and participate in your straw poll. Had you summoned Collect when no poll was taking place then your act would be less suspicious, but the summoning of allies to influence a polling action is precisely the sort of activity that WP:canvass prohibits. Frankly, your canvassing is so overt that I’m surprised that you’d bother to deny it. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 16:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Summoning allies? I'm afraid you are sadly mistaken on that one, 76.107.171.90. In most of my interactions with Collect on Wikipedia, he and I have clashed in our viewpoints and nobody who knows us would cast us as "allies." Don't believe me? Scan our edit histories, or just ask him on his Talk Page. (Collect, please be blunt and candid about our prior interactions, I won't take any offense). Or ask someone who has seen us reverting each other in heated content disputes. Secondly, glancing at your own edit history, it caught my eye just now that three of the members participating here also got notifications from you last month about the Butler BLP being discussed at WP:AE (see here, here, and here). It's irrelevant that the four of you are involved here on Ken Ham voting "keep" - let me be crystal clear, I'm not suggesting collusion or anything untoward in any way - but it makes me want to hypothetically ask you, if someone suggested you were canvassing allies about Butler being discussed, you'd find that very disingenuous, wouldn't you? You need to re-evaluate what you think is going on here and repeating your accusations just paint you as someone who is seeking to get Collect's viewpoint dismissed because you disagree with him. Thirdly, the analogy to drunkenly abusing one's own children doesn't even make any sense. At this point, please take your concerns to the appropriate noticeboard as I'm not inclined to entertain your accusations much further. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, someone did suggest that I was canvasing [[17]], and I responded to their allegation here [[18]]. That I was not sanctioned or reprimanded for canvassing should indicate to you that what I did was not considered to be canvasing. However, getting one of your buddies to aid you in a straw poll is a very different story. You seem to have formed the bizarre opinion that you can engage in canvasing so long as you include a ridiculous disclaimer like “I'm not looking to prompt you to go over there and involve yourself (that would be canvassing on my part)”. Surely you must see the overwhelming hypocrisy of what you’re doing. If I had gone over to Goblin Face and said “hey goblin, could you give me some “advice” about a straw poll *wink wink nudge nudge*” then you would be outraged that I had tried to circumvent the rules of Wikipedia. However, you’re perfectly willing to attempt to circumvent the rules yourself. You must be able to see that WP:CANVASS is utterly without effect if editors can simply circumvent the rule by adding a disclaimer to their attempts to canvass. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
You needn't defend yourself from a canvassing charge here - my point was to make you realize what it feels like to be falsely accused. Collect and I are not "buddies", there was no "wink wink nudge nudge", and your quote above left off the other half of the sentence, which was ", instead I'm just interested in getting your opinion here on your Talk Page" (emphasis added). I meant exactly what I said and there was no hypocrisy or deception on my part. If you don't believe me, then I doubt anything I could ever say will convince you otherwise and it's not worth my time continuing that argument. In any event, as Jytdog suggests it's time to get back to working on consensus. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
So, if I were to run rampant throughout Wikipedia asking all the “skeptical” editors for their “opinion” about this straw poll, you would think that it was perfectly fine for me to reap the benefit of any “happy accidents” that might result? 76.107.171.90 (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

So, so far astray from the topic and from any effort to reach consensus on the topic. Ya'all need to take this out to the bike racks, after school. Not here. thanks. -Jytdog (talk

  • Remove. It is enough to say that he is a young earth creationist whose views are based on the taking the bible literally. Going beyond that is just preaching. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
    • people not familiar with exactly what "young earth creationsim" is - which is most of the general public and potential readers - should not be forced to click to that article to be aware of the mainstream assessment of Ham's most notable aspects. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Nobody is being "forced" to do anything. Some readers will know all about YEC and others won't care anyway. Those who wish to find out more can follow the link and find an article there that starts with explaining neutrally what YEC is, then goes on to sourced assessments of its credibility. Piping "the mainstream assessment of Ham's aspects" to WP:NPOV is totally dishonest. WP:NPOV means adopting a neutral point of view, which means avoiding assessment in wikipedia's voice altogether. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Yes, you are forcing people to go elsewhere for the full context of the subject contrary to WP:LEAD "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies."
        • And see WP:ASSERT and WP:NPOV especially WP:UNDUE and in particular WP:VALID. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
          • WP:LEAD says that "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article" and the sentence we are discussing doesn't. Thank you for your list of relevant WP policies and guidelines, which in general support what I'm saying. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
"and the sentence we are discussing doesn't", so we discuss it more within the article. If that's your issue it's an easy fix. Regards. Gaba (talk) 12:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
My "issue" is NPOV. The body of the article achieves that pretty well. The easy fix is to make the lead correspond. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
How is not NPOV to WP:ASSERT clearly that his claim about the age of the Earth is incorrect? What is not neutral about a simple statement of an undisputed (beyond WP:FRINGE pushers that is) fact? Regards. Gaba (talk) 00:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
WP:ASSERT allows us in articles on mainstream science to avoid all mention of very marginal views like YEC. It nowhere suggests we can baldly label them as incorrect. Within the context of an article specifically about the holder of a heterodox view, as here, neutrality implies stating and sourcing the various positions, but not judging in wikipedia's voice. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Remove. It is absurd that this discussion even needs to happen. The lead for Young Earth creationism doesn't even mention that YEC is "Incorrect." In fact, it is labeled as a religious belief and I assume that Wikipedia tries to avoid using its voice to say that certain religious views are false. Purefury182 (talk) 22:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia uses its voice to WP:ASSERT indisputable facts. This is one of them and there's no reason it should be the exception just because this particular lunatic happens to be religious. Regards. Gaba (talk) 12:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I totally agree that this article should not be the exception. In that, it should reflect other YEC articles and other pseudoscience leads, which means removing said reference to it being incorrect. Purefury182 (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep As we are referencing the actual fact about the age of the earth rather than his belief in YEC in general (which relates to much more than that one fact), "incorrect" is a straightforward and neutral term. Yobol (talk) 01:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • comment I think the straw poll has served its purpose and shown that there is not a common consensus. Is there any opposition to closing the straw poll and moving on? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Are you saying you feel there is neither a consensus to "keep" nor "remove" the word incorrect? AzureCitizen (talk) 12:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
If there is no consensus to keep, then it should probably be removed on a WP:BLP. Bahooka (talk) 14:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
There would probably be strong resistance here to the notion that it should be removed just because it's a BLP (obviously I think we should remove it for BLP reasons, but I think at least half the editors here would disagree). However, what's more salient is a review of what has transpired here in the last three weeks on the article. Based on my recollection, a sentence was added directly to the lede about the incorrectness of the subject's young-Earth claims, the addition was quickly challenged, an edit war erupted, the article got locked down, much debate ensued daily, we started a poll to see where consensus lies, and we've now arrived at a situation where there is neither a consensus to keep nor remove the word "incorrect" (does anyone disagree with that sequence of events or the result)? The implications of that are important here, because when something gets added to an article and it is challenged, the burden is on those wishing for the change to stick long term to establish consensus for the change, not the other way around. Thus, consensus to "keep" would mean we keep it, while consensus to "remove" or no consensus either way would mean we remove it. For that reason, it would probably better to keep the poll open longer, permit more editors to participate (plus see if anyone changes their mind), and allow for the chance that consensus will still materialize for a "keep" result. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't care if you want to keep the straw poll open, but it seems pretty clear to me that the consensus is much stronger in favor of keeping the wording rather than removing it. jps (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
That may indeed be possible, so of course we'll use the request for closure noticeboard to have an outside admin decide if there is a consensus and make their findings accordingly. All in good time and personally I'll be more satisfied with either result given the broader community input the poll is turning out. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Okay, but straw polls are generally non-binding so I'm not sure why you want an administrator to do it. jps (talk) 00:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
It appears you used the link to the mainspace article for straw poll - the corresponding Wiki essay is here. It's true that polls are non-binding in that editors can still refuse to agree and continue to voice their objection to something, but if we use an uninvolved administrator to measure whether or not there appears to be a consensus, we would at least be able to rely on that outside party to determine that there was one. Is there a different way you would propose we use in determining whether or not we have a consensus here? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Interesting summary on the timeline of events of this "straw poll" upthread, notable by the absence of the canvassing that went on. Bad form omitting something like that. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 01:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
There is clearly not a consensus here so I'm not quite sure what any admin could do except perhaps add its voice for or against. I have to disagree with AzureCitizen, no consensus means we keep it. The addition was discussed in the talk page and agreed by 6 editors vs 1 opposed, hence as it stands the version currently up is the consensus version. Regards. Gaba (talk) 01:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I find that rather dubious, but let's entertain the notion. First, in which thread above are you claiming that a consensus was established? Secondly, who are the "six" and who is the "one" you refer to? Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
The thread is here Talk:Ken_Ham#It_is_a_fact_that_the_Age_of_the_Earth_is_not_6000_years_old AzureCitizen. Regards. Gaba (talk) 14:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I see you've linked me to the 2nd thread at the top of the Talk Page (thanks). Please note that a consensus happens when the editors involved take into account the concerns raised by the different parties and work to form as wide an agreement as possible without rushing the process so as to exclude opposing views. The bold edit that started this whole process off a few weeks back was to add a new sentence to the lede with regard to the scientific illegitimacy of the subject's YEC claims. The change was opposed and an edit war broke out. In the first thread of this page, six editors supported the new change and five opposed it. If people had followed WP:BRD, the editors pushing for the new material would have talked it out first, but instead they pressed harder and even managed to get the article locked down on a version with the new material. In the next thread (which happened the same day), I see that an editor from one faction proposed a modification to the wording to further assert that Ham was "incorrect". It was immediately supported by the other five, with one editor from the other faction asking for an RfC and dismissively being told no by members of the six. Less than 12 hours after making this proposal, the proposer even went so far as to declare there was a "broad consensus" even though they knew the Talk Page showed six in favor and five against what had happened. Is this the consensus you are trying to claim here? How did that take into account the views and concerns of the opposing five? How did it work to form as wide an agreement as possible without rushing the process to exclude opposing views? How could a 6:5 split stemming from an edit war and taking place in less than 24 hours ever be a "consensus"? Please explain. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
The issues began with this edit where an IP removed a sentence completely from the lead. The IP was reverted and breached the WP:3RR trying to WP:EDITWAR it back. After that an editor attempted to water down the sentence which ended up with the article having to be protected. The first thread ensued which ended up with one editor requesting the sentence to be removed, this request was denied by an administrator who said consensus should be seeked first and incidentally added that "The statement is well-cited, so it is not objectionable under our biographies of living persons policy." That prompted the second thread (the one I pointed you to) where a consensus was quickly formed 6 to 1 to introduce the current version of the sentence. Given that, I requested the sentence be added which a second administrator did. I evaluated consensus based on the 6 to 1 straw poll and obviously and administrator agreed which is why he added the edit. That is the explanation for the consensus version currently up.
AzureCitizen I respect you as an editor but I take issue with this "the proposer even went so far as to declare there was a "broad consensus". The proposer was me and I don't appreciatte your tone; you'd do well to adhere to WP:AGF. Regards. Gaba (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Been gone for a couple days on a road trip and it wasn't practical to respond. Obviously, we disagree on this, so it would be helpful to get opinions from others. I will compose my thoughts and post something soon. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The essay you cite says that straw polls are not binding on anyone. That's what makes them straw polls. jps (talk) 01:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Right - they are non-binding, meaning that editors are free to disagree with the results and to continue voicing that disagreement. But if an uninvolved administrator were to assess the poll and tell us they believed a consensus had been reached, you would accept that result, right? How else might you propose we measure whether or not there was consensus yet? AzureCitizen (talk) 01:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not a big fan of measuring consensus as I don't think that this is the most effective way to ensure high quality. Especially when we have the issue of creationism where people's biases problematically come to the forefront. It's kinda like trying to decide the content of textbooks via popular acclaim. I do not trust the Wikipedia hoi poloi to make such decisions. jps (talk) 02:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Remove He's wrong about the age of the Earth, but the word 'incorrect' doesn't have the right tone in this context, IMO. It sounds immature (sorry). I suggest replace with "His claim that the universe is only 6,000 years old, based on his interpretation of the Bible, contradicts physical evidence found in the Earth's fossil and geological records." because that states where the evidence for his incorrectness can be found, making it more convincing (IMO) than a flat denial. 78.86.131.23 (talk) 10:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Good start, but I'm not sure how a "claim" can "contradict physical evidence". A claim can be shown to be incorrect because of contrary physical evidence, or claims can be contradicted by physical evidence, but claims really cannot "contradict" physical evidence by themselves. I take your point on the concern over tone. That is a valid objection (it's the "let's improve the wording" sort of suggestion that I think is reasonable). What I want to avoid is the pretense that the physical evidence and measurements are somehow contrary "opinions" to Ham's beliefs. This is not a debate. This is someone who is arguing against facts... somewhat notably so. jps (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
      • You're right. Replace with "His claim that the universe is only 6,000 years old, based on his interpretation of the Bible, is contradicted by physical evidence found in the Earth's fossil and geological records." 78.86.131.23 (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
        • I would support this. This is the best proposal I've seen yet from the "replacement camp". I will highlight it below. jps (talk) 21:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
          • I'd prefer "His claim that the universe is only 6,000 years old is based on his interpretation of the Bible, and is a position that is widely rejected by scientific communities.". Saying "Earth's fossil and geological records" infers that only fossils and geological records refute Mr. Ham's claims. The reality is that any number of sciences or simple observations would contradict his claim. Just saying that the scientific communities reject Mr. Ham makes it clear that his viewpoint contradicts scientific understanding of nature. NickCT (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Is Red and Black Publishers a reliable source

Regarding this source:

*{{cite book|last=Flank|first=Lenny|title=Deception by Design: The Intelligent Design Movement in America|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=pClbgUWwrI0C&pg=PA73|accessdate=18 March 2014|date=2007-01-01|publisher=Red and Black Publishers|isbn=9780979181306|pages=73–}}

Here is the publisher's website. It doesn't actually seem reputable to me, and it's not supporting anything in particular in this article. I'm going to remove it, but naturally we can discuss it. It's one of about 4 sources that's supporting an already well-supported statement.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Why not? Howunusual (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ken_Ham/Archive_2&oldid=1136870872"