Talk:Noah's Ark Zoo Farm/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Early anon comment

This article really does look like a 'vanity' promotion for a commercial organisation. And one with a specific religious agenda, at that. Does this really merit an entry at all?

Doesn't even mention what country it is in.

Creationism opinion

This text was originally added to the article by 82.3.88.231. Moved to here by Rbirkby 09:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC) as the text forms an opinion. Wikipedia is not the place for opinions.

Noah’s Ark Zoo Farm, however, is not what it claims to be. It all looks to be offering a nice day out for children and the family. Until you look again. Click on the Education tab, and you will notice it looks to be passing itself off as the type of place where children will learn and meet some of the requirements of the National Curriculum. Indeed, it brags that it can help children and students right up until the age of 18 and goes into some depth how. Bizarrely it then immediately goes into pushing hard-line creationism, which isn’t part of the national curriculum. And it pushes creationism in volumes. It throws fundamentalist boilerplate stuff at the reader about how wrong radiometric dating techniques are. It pushes Baramin rubbish on animal “kinds”, loss of genetic information over time and irreducible complexity. And when it has finished with contradicting vast swaths of science needed to pass public examinations, it starts preaching. So, by the time your children have left the place they will have been – 1. Messed around with bogus science that even the creationists don’t agree with. 2. Told that their science teachers are completely wrong, and proselytised to by a commercial farmer.

Censorship

I added a factually correct statement about the Noah's Ark Zoo farm's Creationist stance to this article and it was swiftly removed. I do not think the article as it stands is worthy of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peteinterpol (talk • contribs) 23:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticism from whom?

I don't think the "media" have criticised the park; they're simply reporting a story. I think the criticism that I've seen on the web mostly comes from anti-religion types (like skeptic.com) and pre-college teachers of science--but not "scientists."--John Foxe (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Moved discussion

[I've moved this discussion from my talk page.--John Foxe (talk) 09:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)]

Hello John Foxe

My point is: I have never come across a supporter of Darwinian evolution who supports any variety of creationism. Your sentence implies that it is only the Bushes' preferred variety of creationism that they object to. That is not the case. In my experience it is "any" such non-scientific approach.

As Andrew Billen states in this week's Times: "[Conor] Cunningham [theologian presenting TV programme "Did Darwin kill god?"] can believe what he likes but, whereas our world is one big museum of evidence for evolution by natural design, for the existence of God there is no evidence at all."

This article as it stands seems very biased in favour of the views expressed by the proprietor of this zoo. With the growth of articulate Atheism (Dawkins, Hitchens et al) I think it is unfortunate that anyone who tries to present a balanced view in this article gets very swiftly censored.

Peteinterpol (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no interest in censoring anybody, but your use of the term "pseudo-science" to describe creationism is POV. Likewise, you provide no authority for the belief that criticism of Bush's creationism stems from his presentation of creation as fact. The criticism, in my opinion, arises from Bush's large and impressionable audience, a situation that always annoys opponents of creationism. Of course, neither you nor I could say such a thing in the article without citation to authority.

Your point about the last sentence is well taken. I'll rewrite it, avoiding mention of young earth creationism. All the best, John Foxe (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I feel we are making progress. However, we are not quite there. With my latest change I have tried to re-present my basic point, that to many (easily citable) Darwininans, this visitor attraction presents religious beliefs as if they were scientific facts. I have visited Noah's Ark Farm Zoo, and there is no doubt in my mind that there is no scientific basis for many of the claims made in the presentational material on display at the zoo. Certainly no reputable scientist or university has to my knowledge ever endorsed such claims.

I hope you will see my latest change as an attempt to state this in a non-POV, objective way.

Best wishes,

Peteinterpol—Preceding unsigned comment added by Peteinterpol (talk • contribs) 22:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem with what you've written is that the article cited doesn't say that the zoo's religious beliefs are presented as science, and your own belief about the scientific inaccuracy of the material presented is simply POV. At Wikipedia we need citable authority. So for instance, suppose Richard Dawkins had said, 'Bush's creationism is as stupid as the pope's opposition to condoms'. Then you could write, 'Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins has said that "Bush's creationism is as stupid as the pope's opposition to condoms"', and cite the source.--John Foxe (talk) 10:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The only criticism of the zoo is in regard to creationism, so "criticism" is not a separate subject.--John Foxe (talk) 14:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Current pro-Creationist bias within the article

Thank you for your contribution. I feel convinced that without the changes I have made, an impartial observer would detect a very strong pro-Creationist bias in the article as you wish to leave it. That is not what Wikipedia is about. Happy to hear any suggestions that genuinely address the current bias, but I do not think your current suggestion does.

Best wishes,

Peteinterpol —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peteinterpol (talk • contribs) 16:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

You've not demonstrated creationist POV or addressed the substance of my objection, that "criticism" can not be separated from the "creationism" because the only criticism of the zoo has been directed at the zoo's creationism. Please address this objection. (You can sign your posts by typing four tildes.)--John Foxe (talk) 17:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Peteinterpol, from where would this 'impartial observer' appear? It's difficult to be something other than a creationist or an evolutionist.Hi540 (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Good point Hi540. Why not therefore present both sides of this very contentious, 150-year old debate, and leave people to form their own opinions?

Because an article about a children's attraction is not the proper venue for discussion of creationism, on which there are many articles on Wikipedia. Please address the substance of my objection, which is that a heading for "criticism" in this article is unneeded because it's completely subsumed under the head "creationism."

And please don't use the term "controversial," which is overused and meaningless. Creationism is controversial. Evolutionism is controversial. Even zoos are controversial. Whenever I see the word "controversial" on Wikipedia, I know the article has not been properly tended.--John Foxe (talk) 10:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I have been watching the edits and discussions about this article for a while. I don't think discussion of creationism can be avoided as this is the major issue reported about this "zoo" & I feel that controversial is correct in this context - enough references have been provided to show that there is controversy & this should be reflected in the lede. On another note should Template:Infobox zoo be included?— Rod ^talk 11:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Creationism hasn't been avoided, and it's prominently mentioned in the lede. A large section of the article has been devoted to it. I only oppose (and that strongly) the use of the word "controversial"— and in any and all Wikipedia articles. The word is meaningless. Most subjects in encyclopedias are "controversial" in the sense that people have different opinions about them. That obvious truth is not worth mentioning.--John Foxe (talk) 13:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone have a picture to add to the infobox? It's a bit out of range for me.--John Foxe (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I live quite close to Noah's Ark Farm; I'll see what I can do...:-)

Peteinterpol 19:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The only one on Geograph licenced under creative commons (so we can use it) is of a goat with the maze in the background - see Noah's Ark Zoo Farm - goats.— Rod ^talk 19:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

On the matter of the use of "controversial", I completely disagree about it being meaningless. Please see the excellent Wikipedia article Controversy, including the use of the word to refer to many of the early Christian writers, among them Irenaeus, Athanasius, and Jerome, who were famed as "controversialists".

A search of Wikipedia indicates that your dislike for the term is not widely shared; it comes up 37,844 times. I agree with the reasons given by Rod and would prefer to retain it in the article. Please don't Revert the article again without giving further discussion on this page a chance to achieve a resolution.Peteinterpol (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

We can pull in a neutral party to make a decision about the word "controversial." If it appears 37,000 times on Wikipedia, I oppose it 37,000 times. You're right that the word's not truly meaningless; it can mean "fond of controversies, disputatious" and is used as a kind of sneer. I bet "controversial" doesn't appear much in featured articles. Mormons on Wikipedia regularly want to call opponents of their religion "critics," and when I complain that another meaning of that word is "a person who finds fault," they often insist that it means only someone who forms judgments about things—and then they drag in Church Fathers as examples.

Even a picture of the entrance sign would do for a start. With a 100,000 visitors a year there have got to be lots of folks with pictures.--John Foxe (talk) 20:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I drive near the zoo reasonably often, will take my digital camera along next time, if some other Wikipedia user doesn't post something first.

Would welcome a third party taking a look at this whole debate as we seem a bit in a stalemate. Best wishes,

Peteinterpol 21:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Should I ask User:Hi540 who's a born-again Christian? I think you're too eager to have the last word on creationism. Just let it be or go a-blogging. When I'm editing Mormon articles, I don't stick unprovable POV at the end just to have the last word on a religion that I believe historically absurd. As I've said many times on WP talk pages, "Readers are not ninnies." Trust them a bit.

I look forward to the picture.--John Foxe (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello John Foxe. On the contrary, I would be more than happy for a Christian to act as a third party. Christian, Muslim, Atheist, Agnostic, I don't mind what views they hold. What is more important is their track record on Wikipedia of presenting contentious subjects in a balanced way. Anyone out there got any suggestions?

I might have some photos of the zoo from when I visited it. Will check through the album, though not sure if any would be suitable.

Disappointed that you removed my point about UK universities not supporting creationism due to lack of citation. Any knowledge of the UK education sector would support this comment, based on the fact that any university science dept that promoted such a non-scientific approach would swiflty lose its public funding. Oh well, never mind.

Best wishes, Peteinterpol (talk) 07:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

About the statement regarding UK universities not supporting creationism, there are two problems: 1. it's not relevant to an article about a zoo, and 2. you'd need a citable authority who makes this claim even though that we both know it's basically true. (Here Wikipedia truth differs a bit from everyday truth.) That having been said, I'd suggest that there are members of UK science departments who entertain doubts about evolution but who prudently avoid the subject because, as you've intimated, they would lose their reputations and perhaps their jobs if their doubts were known.--John Foxe (talk) 10:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Who knows? But you'd need a citation to say such a thing in "Wikipedia World"!  :-)

No hard feelings,

Peteinterpol (talk) 11:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm in total agreement on both counts.--John Foxe (talk) 12:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) To get a "neutral" view I would suggest completing the Instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment.— Rod ^talk 10:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

How does the zoo promote creationism?

According to the lead, the zoo is (in)famous for being the only zoo in the UK to promote creationism. However the article body gives no substance to this -- no explanation as to how the zoo promotes creationism. From the text, it would seem that it is simply a zoo owned by a creationist, with a (very) vaguely creationist name. The article needs to connect the zoo to creationism more clearly, otherwise its just some obscure zoo that managed to get a some media coverage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I have visited the zoo. It promotes Creationism as follows: where a zoo would normally have a sign by each animal enclosure explaining the name of the species and providing general information about it, this zoo displays signs explaining how each animal's features (e.g. its beak, eyes) are perfectly designed (by God, not Darwinian evolution) for the tasks it needs to carry out to survive.

It also displays posters arguing against Darwininan evolution, and challenging the basic Darwinian tenets accepted by modern science. In particular, see this article and especially the poster expounding the view that apes are not related to man: http://skepticblog.org/2009/02/17/a-skeptic-goes-inside-noahs-ark/

If you visit the zoo, you come away with no doubt that it is promoting a Creationist agenda and actively fighting against the scientific consensus.

I think the article should reflect this, but have found that pro-Creationist editors tend to remove any reference I put in to this effect.

Peteinterpol (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I have addressed this by incorporated a quote from Russell's article. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I summarized the quotation, which I thought over long.--John Foxe (talk) 01:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure that either one solves the situation. Pro-Creationists love the Russell article because it is a rare example of a national newspaper article that presents this subject in a fairly sympathetic way. So it is alway wheeled out, but actually the quotes that are taken from it are highly selective and do not acutally redress the problem.

Let's have the Russell article in by all means. But please let's have other articles too that provide a decent balance and allow a genuine presentation of both sides of the debate.

Peteinterpol (talk) 07:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with that; but if an article is from say, skepticblog.org, that fact needs to be mentioned. What struck me as I looked at the internet hits was how little criticism there was from anyone but anti-religion and anti-creationist groups. If some influential scientist has criticised the zoo, I've missed it.--John Foxe (talk) 10:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Opponents of Bush's creationism

My point is that you can't call opposition to Bush's views scientific unless some prominent scientists have specifically attacked them. To my knowledge not a single scientist has—just anti-religious and anti-creationist groups, the vast majority of whose members are not scientists. To drag in stuff from articles about creationism is irrelevant and tendentious. We have links, and readers are not ninnies. There's no reason to lead them.--John Foxe (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I would disagree that it is necessary for "prominent scientists have specifically attacked them". (i) WP:PARITY would appear to apply, so a "prominent" source is not required. (ii) To the extent that Bush is repeating some orthodox creationist position (be it intelligent design, progressive creationism, gap creationism, Young Earth creationism, etc), it should be reasonable to cite scientific condemnation of that position. It would be unreasonable to expect a condemnation, by name, for every obscure creationists' repetition of an orthodox position. This falls down of course if a creationist's position is sufficiently heterodox as to be unclassifiable, or (as is the case here) is as yet insufficiently documented to identify. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant qualification

I don't se how the fact that "Anthony Bush [is] an Oxford-trained mathematician" is relevant to his creationism. If the qualification was in Biblical studies (or even Theology), Evolutionary biology (or even Paleontology), or similar, it might be worth mentioning. But how is mathematics relevant? I've tagged this. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance either myself; it seems peacockish to me. Also, as of this moment, unsourced. I'd accept it in the history section where Bush is introduced if it's sourced, but it has no place in the creationism section.

Actually the mathematician bit was/is sourced in the Rusell article but recent edits have removed the citation. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I deleted it again. Putting it in the creationism section like that implies he has some sort of intellectual authority. He does not. I wouldn't object if it was mentioned earlier though. Sifaka ^talk 22:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of irrelevant, I don't see how Russell's personal opinion about the private motivations of Bush's critics is at all relevant to this article, so I've cut it. Aunt Entropy (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, Russell quotes Bush as saying that 'there is nothing in the Old Testament that stops me, as a scientist, believing it'. But in what respect is he a scientist? His degree is apparently in mathematics. Does he actually hold any scientific qualification? If not, let's take the Russell quote out.

Peteinterpol (talk) 00:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The last time I looked Mathematics was considerd to be a science. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I wonder where you looked. Your point is by no means generally accepted. See the Wikipedia page on Science where it states that "whether mathematics itself is properly classified as science has been a matter of some debate." More to the point in this context, does Mr Bush have any qualifications at all related to the sciences more usually associated with the field he has chosen to work in, e,g, zoology, biology?

Peteinterpol (talk) 07:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Historically, mathematics was considered a science, currently its acceptance as such is considerably weaker. Science derives itself epistemologically from the scientific method (a relatively recent invention). Mathematics derives from formal logic, without need of the scientific method. I have noticed that creationist mathematicians and engineers have a tendency to self-describe as 'scientists' in order to exaggerate the appeal to authority that their claims enjoy. I would question what possible relevance the 'science' of mathematics has to evaluation of the Old Testament. The claim appears to be self-serving. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.

— Albert Einstein[1]

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Scientific Consensus on evolution

According to WP:FRINGE:

Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community.

Please do not remove the wording on the scientific consensus of evolution. There is no good reason for doing so. Aunt Entropy (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The meaning of "scientific consensus" about evolution depends on your definition of both "scientific" and "evolution." But the real problem is that its mention is tendentious. It's unnecessary and deliberately leads the reader.

Neither is the term "controversial" necessary. Almost everything on Wikipedia is controversial. The zoo certainly isn't controversial to the vast majority of those who visit it.

Finally, this is not an article that covers a "disputed or discounted idea in detail." It's about a zoo.--John Foxe (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It is necessary to mention the consensus in an article about a creationist zoo. Please do not remove it again. And not everything is controversial. The controversy is even mentioned in the lead! Please desist in your attempts to tilt the POV of this page towards creationism. You do not own this article. Aunt Entropy (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

(i) This zoo has evoked coverage (and thus notability) solely because it is "controversial" -- if it were not so, it would be simply yet another non-notable small zoo, of which there are (tens, hundreds of?) thousands world wide. It is therefore reasonable to include this word in the lead (which is meant to, among other things, articulate why a topic is notable). (ii) As the topic is notable for its advocacy of a WP:FRINGE view, it is necessary (both for giving readers an accurate treatment of the subject and for WP:DUE) to place this view in the context of the relevant majority scientific viewpoint. (iii) Neither "scientific" (see scientific method & scientific journal) nor "evolution" (see evolution and modern evolutionary synthesis) are ambiguous in this context. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I continue to disagree. I despise the word "controversial," and the term "evolution" is indeed ambiguous when applied to Bush. Nevertheless, I have no interest in edit warring. It's only fair, however, to provide Bush's own views in the footnotes (or perhaps in the text). His opposition to "evolution" depends only on how that word is defined; and although he's not a young-earth creationist, he doesn't seem to be an old-earth creationist either.--John Foxe (talk) 10:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that the terms Old Earth creationist and Young Earth creationist are collectively exhaustive, and that a creationist must be one or other. I would further suggest that "evolution" in this context is not in the least bit "ambiguous", but rather refers to a set of related scientific theories, including both Darwin's original, the modern evolutionary synthesis and its descendants that include (but are not restricted to) universal common descent and natural selection in their explanation of the diversity of life. Any 'ambiguity' is not inherent in evolution itself, but merely in dishonest and inaccurate creationist misrepresentation of the subject. I would finally suggest that if you do not like the word "controversial" you find some other phrasing to indicate that the only reason this zoo is notable is because of its quixotic and religiously-motived crusade against the entire corpus of scientific knowledge. The adjectives "crank", "flakey" or "wingnut" come to mind -- but none of these are particularly encyclopaedic. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Bush calls proponents of the Young Earth, “loonie American creationists,” but then he talks about the age of the earth in terms of thousands, rather than millions, of years. So how old do you have to think the earth is in order to be an Old Earth creationist?

2. Bush says that he's arguing for "a new approach encompassing a creator God AND pre-programmed evolution." You can deny that Bush is really an evolutionist, but first you'll have to define the term "evolution."

3. Even if Noah's Ark Zoo had no association with creationism, it would still be Wikipedia-notable.

4. Thanks for providing the evidence that your use of the word "controversial" is as tendentious as I've argued: only a sneer, a place holder for "crank", "flakey" or "wingnut."--John Foxe (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

<unindent>

1. Roughly speaking Ussher chronology (or similar interpretation of Genesis) = thousands of years = Young Earth creationism. Scientific age of the Earth = billions of years = Old Earth creationism, with nothing much in-between (just as well, otherwise we might end up with 'Middle Earth creationism' ;) ). Thousands of years + YECs="loonies" = YECist in denial, as far as I can tell.
2. "pre-programmed evolution" would probably mean what is more commonly known as "front loading" (of genetic information), an idea that's been tried a few times by (particularly Intelligent design) creationists, but quickly debunked by scientists.
3. Unlikely. Not every zoo is notable.
4. Thank you for WP:AGF. "Controversial" is an attempt at avoiding a sneer, by providing a NPOV adjective instead of a condemnatory one. Yes, I, like the vast majority of the scientific community, regard Bush's position as as "flakey", "wingnut", "crank", kooky, etc, etc. I also know that it is not appropriate to state such in an article. "Controversial" would appear to be a very mild & NPOV description for what is advocacy of a wholly discredited WP:FRINGE position.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I like 'Middle Earth creationism' even if I don't know what it means or who to apply it to.

It doesn't make any difference whether 'pre-programmed evolution' makes any sense or not. To formally debunk Bush's version of evolution, you'd have to define the sort of evolution that it isn't.

If you don't think a non-creationist Noah's Ark Zoo would be notable, then try Roosevelt Park Zoo (which happens not to be in Roosevelt Park) in Minot, North Dakota. I felt sorry for those poor critters.

'Controversial' is just as POV as any of words you'd love to replace it with—a wink and a sneer for the cognoscente. How could one prove that something was or was not controversial? Controversial to whom? To how many?--John Foxe (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

1. No, you don't have to "define the sort of evolution ['pre-programmed evolution'] isn't" in order to debunk it. What you have to do is (i) define what it is, (ii) see if it matches an already-debunked claim, and if not then (iii) see if it makes any demonstrably false premises.
2. The Roosevelt Park Zoo example is (i) WP:OTHERSTUFF & (ii) a particularly poor example as that article doesn't come even close to meeting WP:NOTE.
3. This zoo has generated controversy. It is therefore not POV to describe it as "controversial". "How could one prove that something was or was not controversial?" Third party sources. "Controversial to whom?" Third party sources.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

1. To debunk something which claims to be evolution as not evolution, you have to define "evolution." As I said at the beginning of this section, calling something evolution (or not) depends on your definition of that term. (So does "scientific"; but we won't go there.)
2. Perhaps Roosevelt Park Zoo is indeed non-notable; but if so, it joins a host of other things on Wikipedia that we can scratch our heads over.
3. I'm fine with citing a reliable third-party source that something is "controversial"–even "flakey" and "wingnut," for that matter. But the word cited should be a quotation from the third-party source, not an editor's interpretation.--John Foxe (talk) 19:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what the big deal is. If there is a statement to the effect that "the view held by those who run this zoo is based on creationism, and is contrary to established science", I think all concerned should be able to live with that. There is no need to add a short essay on scientific evolution to this small article. A short mention with links should be enough. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry,just temporarily slipped over into blogging.--John Foxe (talk) 09:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

One half sentence is all there is. It is not an essay nor editorial. It is now sourced, so no reason to remove it. Aunt Entropy (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The source does not mention Noah's Ark Zoo Farm. You have made the connection yourself and that is synthesis, which is not allowed.

I really do not see what the big deal is. The article makes very clear the POV of the zoo, and there is a criticism from British Centre for Science Education which does mention the zoo specifically. In my view that is enough. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Noahszf

The above user removed all mention of creationism which has now been reverted. I have reported at Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Article discussion

Dbachmann seems to have engaged in a bit of WP:canvassing as seen here. At the very minimum he should have let editors here know that this article is being discussed elsewhere. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Ummm, it isn't Dbachmann, and I'd hardly call bringing up a WP:FRINGE topic at WP:FRINGE/N to be "canvassing". A little WP:AGF would be appropriate here. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

My apologies to Dbachmann. The canvassing seems to have been by Aunt Entropy. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

No. This WP:FRINGE-topic article was perfectly appropriately brought up "by Aunt Entropy" at WP:FRINGE/N (it is after all what that noticeboard is there for). Any "canvassing" exists purely in your own mind. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

In my view a substantial part of what goes on there amounts to canvassing. Usually something along the lines "I am having trouble with article X, and could some editors here give me some back up to help me out." There might well be a genuine problem with article X, but using a noticeboard that way, (canvassing) is not fair, and certainly not if all concerned editors are not informed via the talk page of article X. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Your "view" appears to be without merit or basis in policy. Where WP maintains a noticeboard on a topic can reasonably be inferred as sanction to post comments/alerts relevant to that noticeboard's topic. Posting to such noticeboards is not considered to be canvassing, as it merely exposes an issue to a wider audience without any 'cherry picking' only those who would be agreeable to the poster's position. Availing oneself of these noticeboards is no more canvassing than availing oneself of the WP:RFC or WP:3 process. Further as (i) by your own admission, these alerts are common practice & (ii) you are not (as far as I can tell) a regular on this article, I am at a loss as to why you considered it necessary to bring this to our attention, let alone malign it so absurdly. It seems more than a little WP:POINT. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm, I would like you to point out my language you seem to think conveys canvassing. If you cannot, and you simply have an issue with the existence of the messageboard, please retract your false accusation against me. Every named account who is concerned with the treatment of fringe topics, whether pro- or anti-, has the ability watchlist that board. Aunt Entropy (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sorry to hear you disagree, but hardly surprised. You might want to refer, particularly, to vote stacking and campaigning. Even if you refuse to allow any validity to those points at all (which is, unfortunately, likely to be the case), at minimum the talk page of the article involved should have a link to the thread on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard that is discussing that article. Even if it is just a call for editorial reinforcements (aka canvassing), the editors concerned should know that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm no expert on the technical side of Wikipedia, but is it WP:canvassing when Aunt Entropy writes to Hrafn: "Don't know if you've seen this one, I'm guessing not, because it needs serious work....I know you can do better"?--John Foxe (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

No, as I am not (except in the mind of a single, deluded critic) "multiple Wikipedians", posting a comment on my talkpage (without replicating this action on other users' talkpages) cannot be canvassing. Please read WP:CANVAS more closely. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

(undent) OK, calm down. The discussion is here Wikipedia:FRINGE/N#Noah.27s_Ark_Zoo_Farm (repeated from the top). Perhaps concentration on improving te article is in order. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC) I have reverted recent GF edits as being against the established consensus. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Improving the creationism paragraph.

I made these edits recently to the creationism section.

1. The removal of the oxford reference. I believe this is an inappropriate place for it (versus a few paragraphs above) because it comes off as "credential stuffing" and it seems to imply that Bush has academic authority regarding evolution. Whether or not he has a degree from Oxford has no relevance to creationism or evolution, unless it is in biology, geology etc (or something else relevant) or theology. It is best mentioned elsewhere.
2. Using this chart at Creationism, Bush appears to be an old earth creationist advocating something that resembles either progressive creationism or gap creationism (also called Restoration creationism) according to the quotes in the article and the main website. He believes in an older than ~10000 year earth, doesn't believe in a global flood (however he believes in Noah's ark which seems to contradict this, more details on his theology are needed here.), rejects macroevolution, and I think Bush believes humans are unique from apes (so not based on primate anatomy). Old earth creationism is general enough to cover both gap and progressive creationism.
3. Removal of "in which they believe" from the sentence "and the Bushes named the Zoo Farm for the biblical Noah's Ark, in which they believe." I think it sounds much better without that dangling clause.
4. Weasel word removal. Bush's views contradict scientific consensus about radiometric dating and evidence of common descent, and the zoo has been criticised by the anti-creationist British Centre for Science Education[13] for, in their opinion, 'contradicting vast swaths of science needed to pass public examinations'. Old Earth Creationism contradicts the scientific consensus on evolution. Within the scientific community and academia the level of support for evolution is essentially universal. Therefore, I'm pretty sure the various organizations responsible for major science exams in England stick within the bounds of scientific consensus when designing their tests and answers. "In their opinion" implies that that creationism contradicting scientific consensus is "just an opinion" instead of fact. Sifaka ^talk 00:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the Oxford reference is OK - it shows that even people who have benefited from an expensive education can have barmy ideas. I agree with the removal of "in their opinion". Jezhotwells (talk) 00:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I added in mathematics to the oxford reference to indicate that it isn't in biology/geology. I also removed the "in their opinion". I'll leave items 2 and 3 alone for the time being. If no one comments or objects, then I will follow through with the changes. Sifaka ^talk 00:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Sifaka you need to stop editorializing. Do not put statements into the article that are not sourced refs, and are not statements directly about Noah's Ark Zoo Farm. Doing that is WP:synthesis, and is not allowed on WP. Save the other stuff for the articles on Creationism, Intelligent Design, etc. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The Bushes' views and the scientific consensus

The Bushes:

1. Reject Universal common descent, both generally,[2] and reptile-to-mammal[3] and earlier-apes-to-human transitions.[4]
2. Support a number of Young-Earth claims, including:[5]
   1. 'Accelerated Nuclear Decay' (see RATE)
   2. Creation geophysics#Radiohaloes
   3. Baraminology[6]

All of these positions are in direct conflict with the scientific consensus. I would think that we should be able to present this conflict without violating WP:NOR. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that point is made clear enough in the article as it is. Adding more will not change the fact that many people reject the science in preference for religion (any more than health warnings have made people stop smoking). If those on the science side make themselves obnoxious, that is not going to improve the problem. Although I am entirely on the science side of this argument, I find this zoo project rather likable and harmless. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Depends on your point of view I suppose. When I took my kids there, I felt:

(a) Annoyed at the dishonesty of the zoo's approach. The advert I had seen did not mention the fact that their presentational displays (often placed quite cynically near children's play areas), present weird and nutty religious beliefs as if they were scientific facts.

(b) Sad that rather than presenting to children the rich, amazing and beautiful natural spectacle that is Darwinian evolution, the zoo favoured the absurdly dull and reductionist belief that is Creationism.

Peteinterpol (talk) 19:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

That is a good point. I agree that it would be far better if the zoo was more up front with the public about its POV. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like we're reaching consensus. Hope one of you folks who live nearby can supply a photo. (Peteinterpol, you took your kids and didn't get any pictures?)--John Foxe (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Will take a look in the photo album and see if any are suitable.  :-). I'm not paying admission again to get any more! Will try and stop at the gates when I'm next over that way and take an external shot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peteinterpol (talk • contribs) 21:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

One of the reasons I documented these beliefs was the shear incongruity of rejecting YEC, while supporting a number of YEC relating to the age of the Earth. Once one lets go of a Young Earth, I can see no reason to reject the scientific consensus as to its age. This seems to put the Bushes into the previously-thought-to-be-mythical (and still thought to be untenable) 'Middle Earth creationism' category. It should also be noted that 'Recolonisation theory' that they favour, rejected vehemently by US YECs, holds some favour with the UK Biblical Creation Society, which appears to be a mix of YECs & OECs (unusual in that such groups tended to purge their OEC wings -- read The Creationists for details). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of 'Recolonisation theory', the article footnote jumps to AiG's condemnation of it without first establishing that the Bushes advocate it -- making this condemnation (as yet) irrelevant to the article topic. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm Schosha seems determined to eliminate all mention of the scientific consensus on the Bushes' pseudoscientific claims, unless and until a rebuttal can be found that specifically mentions the Bushes -- in spite of the fact that most of their claims are simply regurgitation of standard creationist claims. Rather than fighting this, I have simply eliminated the Bushes' claims as well, as:

1. It probably violates WP:SELFPUB (unduly self-serving)
2. It violates [[WP:DUE]
3. It fails to use a primary source carefully (in this instance, due to the above reasons, the primary source should not be used without a secondary source to give it WP:DUE context)

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

"Controversial"

To describe the zoo as "controversial," you'll need to cite a third-party source that uses exactly that word. If you think that everything someone doesn't like is controversial, then every living politician, down to the lowliest alderman, is.--John Foxe (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Council chiefs in Bristol have added their voice to concerns about a controversial visitor farm.
The city council said it was refusing to promote Noah's Ark Zoo Farm because of concerns about the Creationist ideology of the Christians who run it.

[7]

Noah's Ark Zoo Farm has been accused of promoting Creationist viewpoints which opponents say will confuse pupils taught Darwin's theory of evolution at school.
...

Now education bosses have called for an inquiry into the farm and its effect on pupils.

The controversy at the educational farm in Wraxall, North Somerset, centres around its owners' beliefs that all humans are descendants of Noah.

[8]

ANTHONY and Christina Bush throw open the gates for the new season at Noah's Ark Zoo Farm today knowing their leap of faith has paid off.
...
The farm's promotion of creationist ideas, which say that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is wrong, has caused some controversy over the years, with some education officials concerned about school visits to the attraction.

[9]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL ... may produce some further hits. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

That's good enough for me. I have no problem so long as the word "controversial" is cited to one or more of those articles.--John Foxe (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

James Russell's opinion

I do not see how a journalist's opinion of the personal motivation of the critics of this zoo is at all relevant to this article. Calling it a "footnote" when it isn't one is not helpful. Aunt Entropy (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

How is mathematics relevant to a section on creationism?

I do not mind this information about Bush in the introduction, but his training is absolutely irrelevant to a section on creationism, and leaving it there gives the impression that it is relevant. Can anyone can show me the connection between mathematics and creationism? Aunt Entropy (talk) 23:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Bush's Oxford education demonstrates that he's no rube, a category in which evolutionists often try to pigeonhole creationists. Nevertheless, I think the mathematics degree has to be cited as well, at least in a footnote, because otherwise readers might assume that Bush is a scientist. If Bush's mathematics degree from Oxford is noted prominently in the anti-creationist BCSE article, the most antagonistic cited, it's difficult to see on what grounds it should be excluded here.--John Foxe (talk) 10:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that the math degree supports his rational thinking ability, so I suppose there is justification for including that information. But I do not think it should be in the lead sentence of that section, so I have moved it back some. I hope that will be an acceptable compromise. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The question of whether or not Bush is a "rube" is not brought up in the article, so is irrelevant (as is the footnoted BCSE quote that he's not a "hayseed"). A qualification in maths offers neither even the slightest degree of certainty of understanding of evolutionary biology or geology, nor even any real assurance of "rational thinking ability" -- as John Forbes Nash, Jr.'s struggle with schizophrenia clearly demonstrates. It is a complete irrelevancy and merely an appeal to false authority. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Forget the maths. I'm satisfied with Oxford and the quote from the BCSE. Obviously the anti-creationist BCSE thought Bush's education was worthy of mention.--John Foxe (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The quote is IRRELEVANT, as the article makes no mention of whether he is a "hayseed" or not. further, the "Even the anti-creationist BCSE says" bit is WP:OR editorialising. Finally, the footnote doesn't actually give a source for the quote -- that source is given in the other footnote -- making the footnote containing the quote entirely redundant. I will fix. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with the sentence in the text, but the first sentence of your quotation is as irrelevant and editorialising (not to mention, stylistically awkward) as mine was.--John Foxe (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not "irrelevant" as it verifies Bush's creationism (which the original quotation didn't). I would be perfectly happy to do away with the quotation altogether (as it is unnecessary given the brevity of the cited source), but if we are going to quote the source, then we need to provide quotes that verify the material -- not irrelevant quotations about whether he's a "hayseed" or not. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I would further point out that a mere paraphrase, especially one that does not mention Bush's creationism, serves no legitimate purpose. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of Bush quote unrelated to mathematics

I think that the Bush quote should be in the article. There is now plenty of sourced material debunking his creationism, and not giving him a chance to explain his intentions in his own words could be a BLP make a problem. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I had it in a footnote, but I think you're right that it belongs in the text.--John Foxe (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Given that Malcolm Schosha is determined to prevent any context from the scientific consensus on this pseudoscientific nonsense that Bush is spouting, it would seem to be in violation of both WP:DUE & WP:FRINGE to include this material. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

In particular, the article should not include Bush's claims purporting inaccuracy of radiometric dating and denying universal common descent, if we are not in a position to give WP:DUE weight to the scientific consensus on these points. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that there's plenty of balance around the quotation. Scientific consensus is mentioned before it, and Bush is called 'delusional' afterward. (Interesting though that the best critical quotations available come not from hard scientists but from a psychologist and a medical doctor who specialises in exposing food faddists.)--John Foxe (talk) 11:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

If you think the quotation's unbalanced, add what you think are the necessary words somewhere, and we'll come out and play.--John Foxe (talk) 14:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

John Foxe: where is the "balance" to the specific claims that Bush is making? Where is WP:DUE weight to the scientific consensus that "one evolutionary tree of life" is supported by a mountain of evidence and thar "Geological dating methods" are not inaccurate? If this balance cannot be included, as required by WP:DUE, then the material should not be included at all. As WP:FRINGE states:

Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community.

Both the claim that "the fossil record does not show one evolutionary tree of life" and that "Geological dating methods currently used may be inaccurate and thus earth history timescales could be very different from those presumed" have been extensively "disputed" and "discounted" in reliable sources, so the article should document this. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It may have escaped your attention that this article is about a zoo, a creationist zoo. It is not an article about Bush's "delusional" beliefs. Bush's statement is adequately countered by the views of a leading psychologist, who specialises in belief systems and irrational beliefs:

From Hoods page at University of BristolCognitive development from a neuroscience perspective. Face and gaze processing. Inhibitory control of thoughts and actions. Spatial representation and action. Naïve theories. The origin of adult magical reasoning from children’s natural intuitions. Many of my current interests in the origins of supernatural beliefs are contained in my forthcoming book, “SuperSense: Why We Believe the Unbelievable” which is to be published in April 2009 by HarperOne. http://www.brucemhood.com/

and also by the opinions of two leading science writers.

The template which you have placed assumes that the whole section is a reproduction of Bush's views. The section was originally named criticism, perhaps it should be changed back to that or to controversy. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

That is below the level of official WP policy, and is a guideline that says "This page documents an English Wikipedia content guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception."

I can see, without reservations, that the WP:FRINGE guidelines should be applied fully to subjects like creationism and intelligent design. But this article is just about a small zoo. The criticisms, of its problematic distortions of science, are well documented in the article with sourced refs, and the desire to pile on even more criticism seems unnecessary, and to border of a sort of fanaticism. All the more so since the article contains, necessarily, biographical information about the zoo's founder, which brings in the need for some sensitivity to WP:BLP considerations. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that (in a quote that John Foxe is insistent on retaining), Bush states that two important positions held by the scientific consensus are wrong. This is not simply Bush expounding upon his beliefs, this him claiming the authority to refute the scientific community. If we wish to quote him on these specific points, then we need to give due weight to the scientific community's position on these points -- a weighting balance that is in no way contradicted by WP:BLP. This is also quite separate from discussing Bush's creationist beliefs generally, and balancing this with the views of experts that his general creationist beliefs are "delusional". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the sourced material critical of his belief debunks his beliefs very well. When it is enough, it is better to stop. If more creationist stuff is added, you can always respond with more science based material, or just remove anything that is POV pushing. But a few words to explain himself is only fair. OR, if you really think that statement already creates a problem with WP:SOAP, it could be shortened. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I have a low toleration of tendentious boxes, Hrafn. Bush's views are a religious belief. Would saying that be satisfactory?--John Foxe (talk) 20:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Perhaps concentration on the article as a whole would be best. Pictures would be good, perhaps an infobox. Does WP Somerset have a preferred style, similar to the Bristol WP version? Jezhotwells (talk) 21:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

"Tendentious"?

1. How is it not "tendentious" to insist that Bush be allowed to "speak for himself", to make fallacious claims about science, without mentioning (as WP:FRINGE requires) that these claims have no acceptance in the scientific community? And no Jezhotwells, we should not 'concentrate on the article as a whole' when it is these claims that John Foxe insists on having included and these claims that Malcolm Schosha insists on removing all rebuttal from. If it is the "article as a whole" that is at issue, then why the obdurate insistence on including (without specific rebuttal) this specific fallacious-claim-making quote?
   • If the specific claims about radiometric dating and universal common descent were eliminated (per Malcolm Schosha's "it could be shortened" comment above), I wouldn't have any problem with including the quote without specific rebuttal.
2. How is it not "tendentious" to claim that Bush's opinions on the date (and thus historical existence) of Adam and Eve is "irrelevant" in a section about Bush's beliefs in the Biblical creation and Noah's Ark -- all three issues being connected via the Book of Genesis (and a literal interpretation thereof)?

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Bush's beliefs are just that, 'beliefs'. He offers no scientific proof. The quoted statement says, 'We argue the case....We believe the fossil record....Geological dating methods currently used may be inaccurate'. There's no reason why we couldn't include a statement saying that Bush's beliefs are not those officially espoused by the scientific community (although I have a suspicion that were their careers not at stake, you would find more hard scientists expressing doubts about current notions of radiometric dating and universal common descent). The problem with such rebuttals is that they sound silly. I run into this problem regularly on Mormon articles. If I write 'Joseph Smith said he received golden plates from an angel', someone wants to stick in a rebuttal, 'No one but Mormons believes this'. Certainly. But when we discuss religious beliefs, every reader understands that those who don't believe, don't believe.

As for Adam and Eve, I have no problem saying that Bush believes in them, but his speculation about when they lived is footnote stuff—especially because those who believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis would write him off immediately.--John Foxe (talk) 10:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Last I checked, neither radiometric dating, the fossil record nor universal common descent were matters of theology. They are topics solidly within the realm of science. What Bush states he "believes" or "argues" about them are thus likewise not a legitimate expression of religious faith, but pseudoscientific claims.
2. "although I have a suspicion that were their careers not at stake, you would find more hard scientists expressing doubts about current notions of radiometric dating and universal common descent" -- utter & baseless wishful thinking! And I would point out that your calling widely-accepted and massively substantiated scientific theories mere "notions" reveals a deep anti-science bias and wilful ignorance of the subjects.
3. "but his speculation about when they lived is footnote stuff" -- so you are claiming that Bush's claims about radiometric dating are legitimate religious beliefs, but that his claims about Adam and Eve aren't? Funny, I don't remember radioactivity being mentioned in Genesis -- but I have a strange (and it would seem delusional) idea that Adam and Eve were (and prominently so).

Attempting to include Bush's claims on radiometric dating & universal common descent as "religious beliefs" while also seeking to exclude his claims about Adam and Eve from the main article text is really really REALLY tendentious. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood part of what I've written. But I'm interested in what you believe to be 'legitimate expression of religious faith' and how you would differentiate it from illegitimate belief.--John Foxe (talk) 11:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hrafn, writing edits in bold, and/or in caps, is considered yelling, and could lead to a complaint for violation of WP:civility. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

'legitimate expression of religious faith'

John Foxe states:

I'm interested in what you believe to be 'legitimate expression of religious faith' and how you would differentiate it from illegitimate belief.

Firstly I'd like to say that I reject the premise that the dichotomy is between 'legitimate' and 'illegitimate' religious beliefs. The issue is epistemology not legitimacy. The epistemology of religious beliefs is their basis in such things as revelation, interpretation of sacred books, mysticism, meditation and the like. The epistimology of science is the scientific method.

1. Thus, it is perfectly reasonable to state that:
   • "I believe that the universe was created 10,000 years ago" is a religious belief -- as such a belief can have its basis in interpretation of Genesis (the Ussher chronology is an example of one such interpretation).
2. Likewise it is reasonable to state:
   • "I believe that the universe was created 10,000 years ago, so I do not accept the scientific consensus on the age of the Earth" is a religious belief -- as it is merely the above interpretation, plus a personal decision to value religious epistemologies over scientific ones.
3. We get into trouble is if we state that:
   • "I believe that radiometric dating is inaccurate, so I do not accept the scientific consensus on the age of the Earth" is a religious belief. The epistemology of determining the accuracy or inaccuracy of radiometric dating is one of science and the scientific method. It is not determinable via "revelation, interpretation of sacred books, mysticism, meditation [or] the like." I would agree that it might be considered an attempt to rationalise a religious belief (such as those given in #1 & #2), but I would not agree that it is itself such a belief.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Are the following statements of religious belief?

A creationist: 'I believe God created the world 100,000 years ago, and therefore I believe that the consensus interpretation of radiometric data must be in error'.

An atheist: 'Current geological dating methods may be as inaccurate as those of Lyell and Hutton, and thus earth history timescales may be very different from those assumed by my contemporaries'.--John Foxe (talk) 18:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

1. 'I believe God created the world 100,000 years ago, and therefore I believe that the consensus interpretation of radiometric data must be in error'
   • Ignoring for the moment the fact that (i) we don't have any interpretation of Genesis that comes close to 100,000 years & (ii) the problematical wording "in error" (which implies a mistake was made in applying the scientific method, rather than outright rejection of that method in favour of religious epistemology), then yes.
   • The problem is that this is not the argument Bush made
     • This argument would go: 'God created the world 100,000 years ago' → 'timescales of the order of billions of years must be wrong' → 'radiometric dating which came up with these estimates must be wrong'
     • Bush's argument is: 'radiometric dating is inaccurate' → 'timescales are wrong'
     • You will note that, as well as missing the "God created" bit, the relationship in the argument between radiometric dating and timescales is reversed.

   In the Shermer interview cited in the article, Bush springs for 100,000 years, Genesis or no Genesis. More significantly, it's not credible that Bush came to a belief in Creation by first rejecting radiometric dating. The order of his reasoning must follow the sentence above, that he believes in Creation, therefore the interpretation of the radiometric data must be in error. In fact, the zoo website says, 'The conflicting lines of evidence may be reconciled if radioactive decay rates were much faster in the past'.--John Foxe (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

   • (i) "Genesis or no Genesis" -- hence my caveat in my first bullet-point above. Bush's date-pick appears to have no basis in any known interpretation of Genesis, nor in accepted science (or creationist pseudoscience) -- it thus exists in a foundationless 'no man's land', lacking any discernible religious or scientific epistemology. (ii) Whether its "credible" or not, it is the claim Bush made: "Geological dating methods currently used may be inaccurate and thus earth history timescales could be very different from those presumed". This clearly states the "order of his reasoning" as given in the quote you insist on including. If you feel that this statement inaccurately represents Bush's reasoning, then you are welcome to remove it from the quote. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 00:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

   In religion, folks can believe as they can wish. It's not our place to say what is or is not appropriate. And you're providing a fundamentalist reading to Bush's words that defies logic.

   As I said earlier, Bush's beliefs are strictly religious. They cannot be proved or disproved by the scientific method, and therefore, they are not susceptible to rebuttal. All that can be said of them is that they challenge the current consensus of scientists.--John Foxe (talk) 10:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

   1. "In religion, folks can believe as they can wish." Unsubstantiated, erroneous and irrelevant.
   2. "And you're providing a fundamentalist reading to Bush's words that defies logic." ROFLMAO:

   1. Bush's Biblical literalism clearly indicates that he is most likely a fundamentalist Christian
   2. Your calling universal common descent & radiometric dating mere "notions" suggest that it is likely that you're a fundamentalist Christian as well
   3. "'radiometric dating is inaccurate' → 'timescales are wrong'" follows the same "order of ... reasoning" as "Geological dating methods currently used may be inaccurate and thus earth history timescales could be very different from those presumed":

   • "radiometric dating is inaccurate" ≈ ""Geological dating methods currently used may be inaccurate"
   • "→" ≈ "and thus"
   • "timescales are wrong" ≈ "earth history timescales could be very different from those presumed"

   It is rather your interpretation "that defies logic", and is a gross and obvious misrepresentation of Bush's argument.

   1. "As I said earlier, Bush's beliefs are strictly religious." Bare assertion, and therefore worthless.
   2. "They cannot be proved or disproved by the scientific method..." Wrong. -- "that radiometric dating is inaccurate" can be, and has been, disproved by the scientific method.

   Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

   I repeat: Bush's beliefs are strictly religious. They cannot be proved or disproved by the scientific method, and therefore, they are not susceptible to rebuttal. All that can be said of them is that they challenge the current consensus of scientists.--John Foxe (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

   "I repeat..." -- Argumentum ad nauseam of an unsubstantiated assertion -- worthless. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

   Please accept my sincere apology for wasting both your time and mine.--John Foxe (talk) 20:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

2. 'Current geological dating methods may be as inaccurate as those of Lyell and Hutton, and thus earth history timescales may be very different from those assumed by my contemporaries'
   • I see no indication that this is a religious belief, but lacking the epistemological basis for the declaration that "Current geological dating methods may be as inaccurate as those of Lyell and Hutton", I cannot tell for certain.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Minus Lyell and Hutton, the sentence is similar to the Bush quotation in the article: 'Geological dating methods currently used may be inaccurate and thus earth history timescales could be very different from those presumed.'--John Foxe (talk) 21:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Relevance of Google Earth

Given that Google Earth includes Google Street View, from which individual shrubs are "easily visible", how is "easily visible on Google Earth" relevant? Even beyond this feature, Google Earth frequently features a resolution of 1m -- so a garden shed might be "easily visible". I am tagging this piece of self-reported trivia. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it would better to include one of those coordinates boxes instead which shows the location of the hedge maze so people could look at it. I found where it is on google maps, but I don't know how to extract the geographical coordinates from it. The location of the hedge maze is here. I agree that being able to be seen on google maps is not particularly noteworthy. Sifaka ^talk 18:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you both. The reference to Google Earth is irrelevant, but it would be nice to include the coordinates.--John Foxe (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

We already have coordinates showing on the article - but the specific coords (in all systems I'm aware of) for the maze are: OS X (Eastings)=348577, OS Y (Northings)= 173069. Lat (WGS84) = N51:27:15 (51.454254), Long (WGS84) = W2:44:29 (-2.741462). LR = ST485730. mX = -305178, mY = 6668602.— Rod ^talk 19:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.--John Foxe (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant footnote material

Incidentally, why is the statement that:

Bush believes in a version of creationism sometimes called the 'Recolonisation Theory', which is strongly opposed (in The ‘Recolonisation Theory’—the latest compromise) by the Young Earth creationist organisation Answers in Genesis).

...contained in a footnote whose purpose is to verify a quote by the Bushes that makes no mention of Recolonisation Theory? The footnotes in this article seem to be quite frequently loaded up with material that is only tenuously related to the text that they're attached to. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Quoting Bush's claims

Is it appropriate to quote Bush's claim that "the fossil record does not show one evolutionary tree of life; instead possibly diversification of a number of body forms instead. Geological dating methods currently used may be inaccurate and thus earth history timescales could be very different from those presumed" without "properly contextualiz[ing]" it by "document[ing] (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the [scientific] community" (as required by WP:FRINGE)? 14:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Does the cited source [10] even contain that quote? I might be mistaken, but I don't see it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it is ok to include some information on Bush's POV on evolution, but in a way that does not allow WP to be used as a soapbox for that POV. I had previously thought that the original quote from him was acceptable, but am now inclined re-think that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It's in this source [11]. We need to have his explanation. The rebutals can go in the reception section. Paul B (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It is normal WP:NPOV practice to include criticism in the relevant sections, rather than split it off into its own section (see WP:CSECTION). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it not normal practice to include criticisms of the content of quotations that Wikipedia editors choose to make. It is normal practice to include criticisms that have been made by others. These are currently in a separate place in the article. The quotation could be added to that section, but that would be a stylistic decision regarding the flow and logic of the presentation of evidence. At the moment it is separate because it is presented as an explanation of motivations. Paul B (talk) 08:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the source should be quoted, with a brief sentence afterward that this contradicts observations and scientific evidence. I appreciated seeing the words of Mr. Bush, and I believed that the quote helped me understand his mindset, but it is important to counter the quote such that the article doesn't come out in support of his personal views. Awickert (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that is a good idea, because unless the source is referring to exactly to Noah's Ark Zoo Farm there is a problem with WP:synthesis. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not see any issue with synthesis. I agree with 2/0 (below) who may put it better than I did. The quote represents the views of the farm's owner. But it needs to be contextualized such that it is not presented as valid fact. Awickert (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It is synthesis, and OR too. An editor will be adding content that no source has said about Noah's Ark Zoo Farm, but based upon an editor's own judgment. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes quote, yes context The quote, as currently attributed, is fine and seems pertinent to the article. This is not the place for a long digression on evolution and dating methods, but it would be misleading to present this quote as the last word on these issues. As Hrafn states, it should be immediately (albeit briefly) contextualized with the mainstream view. - 2/0 (formerly Eldereft) (cont.) 16:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Subsidiary question: would the following statement be WP:SYNTH:

The scientific consensus is that the fossil record contains evidence of common descent and that radiometric dating is not inaccurate.

The point being that the statement is a relevant general statement on the scientific consensus, rather than a statement directed specifically at Bush (which attempt at specificity appears to be where WP:SYNTH becomes an issue). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Explanatory example:

• Assume we have RS that Jake said "2+2=5" and that John said "2+2≠5"
• A reasonable argument can be made that to state "Jake says 2+2=5, John says that Jake is wrong" is WP:SYNTH.
• However, it does not (at least on my reading of policy) appear to be WP:SYNTH to state "Jake says 2+2=5, John says that 2+2≠5."

Is this reading correct? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Either yes on quote + context or no on quote. The quote cannot stand without proper context due to WP:FRINGE. If you wish to describe this detail of Bush' beliefs, it must not be given undue weight. And any claims that it's not a detailed description there because the whole of the article is "just about a zoo" are borderline tendentious and lawyering the spirit out of the pertinent fringe guideline. Aunt Entropy (talk) 18:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is certainly true, but as is known, in WP the standard is not truth but WP:verify, and I don't see a source connecting it to this zoo. I think this is the wrong way to deal with the problem, if indeed there is a problem. It is WP's intention to supply balanced information, but you seem to want to add an Information Police function to that. To me that seems a bad idea. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Is a "source connecting it to this zoo" required if it is only presented as a general statement relevant to the zoo, not a statement about the zoo? Such a requirement would appear to be an overly-restrictive interpretation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think such a source is needed. But even if it were not, there is already content in the lead, and very substantial content in the Creationism section, debunking his ideas on evolution. Why do you think more than that is needed? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

OK - I get it now - your idea is to axe the whole thing as irrelevant to the zoo? Awickert (talk) 19:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I would point out what while there is general criticism of Bush and his creationism, there is currently no "debunking [of] his ideas on evolution" -- as none of this criticism actually mentions what "his ideas on evolution" are. If the article only said (at greater or lesser length) 'Bush is a creationist', then it would be acceptable to say only 'scientists think creationism bad'. But as the article goes on to say 'Bush makes claims X & Y', the article needs to say 'scientists say X & Y are wrong'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It would be better, I think, to shorten the statement by Bush. There is no obligation to let him use WP as his soapbox. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

If we do that, maybe we should just shorten the whole section, for due weight. There seems no reason for a laundry-list of refutations. What might be better is a simple statement of his beliefs, and another simple statement that they are contradicted by scientific observation. Awickert (talk) 19:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I could live with a shorter version, or with something the length it is now. I think this should be changed: "Bush claims to be offering a mediating origins hypothesis". That is confusing because his so called "mediating" version is just as contrary to the science on the subject as if he believed the earth was created in six days 5769 years ago. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course Bush's claims should be included! They are adequately countered by the opinion of scientists below. I really do belive that it would be better if ediotrs concentrated on working on the article about the a zoo, rather than trying to bend it into part of the creationism/Darwin debate. I supect several editors have been attracted to this page about a tourist attraction in Somerset in order that they may push their own opinions. WP:NPOV cuts both ways. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Two points: (i) I think Malcolm is right about "Bush claims to be offering a mediating origins hypothesis" being problematical -- particularly as we have some reason to believe that Bush's hypothesis is "mediating" between OEC & YEC rather than between Creationism & the scientific consensus. It might therefore be useful to see what (if anything) his fellow creationists have to say about his claims. (ii) Most of the coverage of the zoo is about zoo-that-promotes-creationism rather than zoo-as-tourist-attraction, so it is unsurprising that the article (per WP:DUE) reflects this. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

[undebt] In fact the above statement Most of the coverage of the zoo is about zoo-that promotes-creationism ..... is factually incorrect as google will show, either google news or google web. Most of the coverage is about the tapir birth, proposed new tiger enclosure, wind turbine installation, easter egg hunt, other mentions such as these on tourism related sites. It would be helpful if editors left their personal views at the door and focussed on the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 05:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The tapir/giraffe/gibbons/agouties/etc coverage has been mainly in the local news media (Weston & Somerset Mercury & BBC News: Bristol). The coverage in the more prominent national media has concentrated mainly on NAZF's creationism. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

OK - so then with that, and acknowledging that I am a 3rd party that has never edited the article and may not be educated on its history, I suggest that the whole creationism part be cut down to the barebones. Something like:

Anthony Bush is an Oxford graduate and Anglican Christian who advocates creationism. The Bushes named the zoo farm for the biblical Noah's Ark, and zoo displays argue the historical truth of both creation and Noah's flood. Anthony Bush, however, does not accept flood geology and believes the earth to be around 100,000 years old.

And, if editors think it is necessary, something like "science says this is wrong" could be added, but I personally think it's all right since it's just expressing his opinion. Awickert (talk) 06:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. John Carter (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm an uninvolved editor responding to the request for comment. I think that the Bush quote is appropriate for this article. Particularly since the article up until that point describes Mr. Bush and the Zoo as Creationist without making a distinction between his views and YEC, etc. His views are, to me, significant to the article since this kind of thing is one of the zoo's sources of notability. A brief contextualization is also appropriate. I think Hrafns suggestion above of

The scientific consensus is that the fossil record contains evidence of common descent and that radiometric dating is not inaccurate.

or something similar would be appropriate (are radiometric dating and geological dating synonymous? I don't think so.) There is no WP:synth in making scientific consensus clear. Science cannot be expected to criticize by name each notable Creationist, nor should wikipedia be full of articles giving undue weight to those viewpoints. The article raises a viewpoint that contradicts the scientific consensus, and that context should be made available to the reader. I cannot imagine what benefit there would be to not doing so, except to promote a Creationist viewpoint within the article, and we are not here to promote viewpoints, but to make verifiable information available to our readers. The quote is good. Context is good. Mishlai (talk) 06:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

A personal opinion.

I have been to this place. It is one of the factors that changed my mind about religion. This place makes a mockery of many of the hard working zoos and museums across the country; by promoting AND forcing false theories to people (and children) instead of teaching the facts. I can't believe that in 2009 (!) we are still having a debate about whether scientific PROOF can be disproved by a book. disgusting. 92.239.191.6 (talk) 19:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about personal opinion: "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages." Cyberspace is full of blogs, and I'd suggest you contribute your personal opinions to one or more of them.--John Foxe (talk) 13:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

further....

(Im not asking to have reference to creationism removed, as that wouldn't be truthful- but i propose a more broad description of the zoo with this as a part (and not the focus) as a general search of Noah's Ark online will show as much reference to specific animals and events and not just atheist discussion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodward21 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 25 September 2009

Your constructive edits are as welcome here as those of anyone else, Jon, so long as they follow Wikipedia rules. (Remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes.)--John Foxe (talk) 14:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

re. removal of references by peteinterpol 29/09/09

Could someone- perhaps Peteinterpol himself explain the justification of removal of my recent 'popularity' references from Noah's Ark description? Other than just another peice of evidence for the desire to remove any trace of positivity about the place from a Wikipedia mention?!

The place does (like it or not) attract over 110,000 people per year, up to over 120,000 people on a good year. I therefore added unbiased references from two well-known and unbiased review sites to support this claim- come on guys! The very nature of 'popularity' is going to be difficult to reference: however surely a trusted review site is the best place to start pointing out many individuals personal experiences of such a place (including critism of the creationist material at NA and other misgivings found in this section) is going to be ok for such an instance?

I have re-added these links. --Woodward21 (talk) 12:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Tripadvisor Traveller Ratings/Popularity Index appear to be simply an aggregation of indivduals' non-expert reviews. As such they are not WP:RS, any more than Amazon reader reviews (or for that matter blog comments) are. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You won't find me much at this article on the same side as Hrafn, but on this point I agree. Popularity might be better measured by comparing visitation statistics, perhaps with other zoos or with attractions in the Bristol area.

In passing, Woodward21, couldn't you come up with a better photo than the current truly ugly one.--John Foxe (talk) 12:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it the photo that is truly ugly or the poster that it depicts? That poster (and others) are on display at the zoo. So the photo at least is an accurate depiction of this article's subject.

Peteinterpol (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC).

The poster is ugly and the photo of it is ugly. A picture of you getting out of bed in the morning is no doubt an accurate depiction, but unless the photographer is your enemy, he'll let you comb your hair before taking a shot to post on the internet.--John Foxe (talk) 09:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

But if I am ugly anyway, it doesn't matter how much I comb my hair before the photographer takes my picture.  :-)

There is an abundance of this type of material on display at the zoo, and they make no attempt to conceal its "ugliness" to its visitors. I am not sure what you would want to replace this image with, but pictures of the zoo's animals alone, or its buildings or landscape, would not be a full reflection of what you actually find if you turn up in person.

By all means let's add additional photos as well, but it would be wrong to remove this image on aesthetic grounds alone.

Peteinterpol (talk) 10:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

re. popularity

Ok, i get your point- but I happen to know the visitor numbers for 2007, 2008 and 2009 for Noah's Ark demonstrating high popularity- the only issue here is that any comparison such as you speak of will use (albeit accurate which people may not like!) data figures from Noah's Ark in the first place (even to compare attractions in South West, by someone like South West Tourism). I'm more than happy to use references from Noah's Ark direct (which I thought would probably be removed by Users here) which i see no problem with. But as i say, even using a Tourism board figures would come from this source anyway!

Surely the subjective nature of popularity (not just visitor numbers, but reaction to the place)is going to be better demonstrated from multiple reviews from independant people anyway? Hence why i added those references first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodward21 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

topic: inappropriate removal of material from Noah's Ark Zoo Farm page

I have moved the following text, and the heading above, from my personal page. It had been placed there by Woodward2.

"Please refrain from removing material from pages based on your own agenda. Due to the very nature of the point being referenced- trusted review websites constitute the best source of unbiased information regarding a tourist attractions popularity. I will add more of such to provide further evidence to support this when I have time. Regards --Woodward21 (talk) 12:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)"

I would remind Woodward2 that it is recommended Wikipedia policy to assume good faith on the part of other editors. I have no agenda but to follow the Wikipedia guidelines. My objection, as I stated very clearly, was the thin evidence to support the word "popular". The citation given led to a website where a very small number of users had left positive reviews of the attraction. Subjective terms like "popular" are problematic to support, but if we must have them let's have something a bit more objective to support them. Statistical info on numbers of visits to the attraction is better evidence, so I am happy that the citation is now much improved.

Best wishes,

Peteinterpol (talk) 19:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I recommend that Woodward21 reads and understans WP:reliable sources. Even the figures from SW Tourism are somewhat questionable as they are based on figures supplied by attractions with no verifiable independent auditing. Sites such as tripadvisor are essentialy forums and thus not RS. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Even if we can take the figurs at face value, going from them to "popular" is unambiguous WP:SYNTH, as well as being questionably-based in those figures (what percentile of attractions qualifies as "popular"?). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely agree, I had not noticed the source of the statistics. As I suggested, I am uncomfortable with the use of the word "popular" as it is so hard to support with objective evidence. Unless objective statistical evidence emerges showing its relative popularity against, say, other zoos, or attractions in the south-west, I would prefer the removal of the term.

If the aim is to say that the zoo does a roaring trade despite its unusual approach to science and education, I am sure there would be other more Wikipedia-compliant ways of expressing this.

Peteinterpol (talk) 10:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

South West Tourism are the official and leading Tourism body in this area: if they are happy using these statistics for data comparison in this field themselves and for outside users, then why do we have the right to dismiss them as unreliable? The very nature of visitor numbers means that an Official from SW Tourism or other body cannot count numbers for each attraction- but being official members of reputable tourism bodies (or a licensed Zoo for this matter) means their practises as a business and publishing of material is under this guidance and scrutiny. In response to the notion of 'popular'- from these stats it is clear to desciminate the high total yearly visitor numbers compared to others listed here- also the left-most column displays the % increase per annum in Visitor total over the last few years which in the case of Noah's Ark is actually shown as suprisingly high (15%) in comparison with the general pool. Do we really need to argue over the percentile threshold for popularity here?! It is clear that 110,000 people per year demonstates a high Visitor interest and 15% increase between 2006-2007 shows a move towards more people through the gates. I guess you can pick a hole in this if you like- but is it justified? I don't think so.

You use 'controversial' as a referenced point from a Bristol Evening Post article- yet in the article it only reads that the author quotes it as controversial himself- is that a reliable source? Granted, Noah's Ark DOES court controversy.... but you see my point if we are going to go down this route? I want some a fair picture of Noah's Ark here- it is controversial, but it is also a suprisingly popular place whether this is liked or not!Woodward21 (talk) 10:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Confirming the comments by User:Jezhotwells, the Survey of Visits to Visitor Attractions 2007 appears to be part of this national survey, where it states: "Please be aware that the Visits to Visitor Attractions Survey is a self completion survey. There is no obligation for any visitor attraction to supply data and VisitBritain does not verify data provided by an attraction beyond a basic 'sense check'." Of course, that doesn't necessarily make the figures unreliable. Regarding use of the word "popular", I entirely agree with the points made by others - there is absolutely no good reason for that word to appear in the introduction, per WP:APT, WP:LEAD, etc., so I'll remove it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, if that't the concensus based on those references. Then I guess the same issues can be taken with use of the term 'controversial' in the opening line. The reference is a single journalistic quote from a Bristol Evening Post article, not referenced from elsewhere, and being 'controversial' can only be gleaned from looking at resulting discussion/debate generated by the place or person in question. More accurate references would be needed here.Woodward21 (talk) 11:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree.--John Foxe (talk) 12:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

So do I. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of 'Controversial'

I think the word 'Controversial', which has been a part of this page without challenge for some time now, has been removed prematurely. I would like to see a bit more of a debate on this discussion page before it goes. I certainly don't think there is consensus to remove it yet.

Can a bit of common sense prevail, please? 'Controversial' and 'Popular' are both subjective terms. However, both are used widely in Wikipedia and surely there is no reason, if properly supported, that they cannot be used here. Otherwise we will have to remove all adjectives from Wikipedia. But in common usage there are different ways of proving the validity of their use. For example:

Popular: In everyday usage, 'popularity' is frequently used to describe things that can be measured in terms of sales. E.g. music is often measured in terms of sales and downloads. Few people would argue that Madonna is a popular singer in those terms. So if objective, audited figures can be obtained that show NAZF is competitive in terms of admission figures against similar types and sizes of attractions, who would object to calling it 'popular'? Personally I would support it.

Controversial: the same criteria do not apply. Controversy is never, and cannot be, measured in statistical terms in the way that, say, recording artists or novelists conventionally are. It is more a case of popular consensus. Richard Dawkins is often referred to as 'controversial'. It would be hard to argue that his books have not caused a controversy. In common usage, is there really anyone out there who does not believe, whatever their personal views on the subject, that the line NAZF takes on Darwinian evolution and Creationism is controversial? So I think we have to retain it here.

I do understand where Woodward2 is coming from on 'popular'. When I visited NAZF, admittedly three years ago now, the place was bustling. It did seem very 'popular'. But I do think we need something more objective than that here.

Any other views on this? In the meantime, can we please restore 'Controversial' until there is consensus?

Peteinterpol (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I've always hated the use of the word "controversial" in Wikipedia articles. Everything is controversial to someone, and the word "controversial" is either just the placeholder for a sneer, or it's a sign that the commentator has nothing profound to say. Anyone who calls Richard Dawkins "controversial" demonstrates only the limits of his vocabulary.--John Foxe (talk) 19:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with JohnFoxe - it's "controversial" to some and not others, just as it's "popular" to some and not others. Neither term is necessary in the intro sentence, although both aspects of the place need to be set out fully in the article itself. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

re. Rev Michael Roberts quote- permission to remove

I don't think the latest reference to the creationist stance at Noah's Ark is relevant- it appears once more to be only a useful tool for the anti-creationist editors of this group and add nothing but opinion to be passage. Rev Roberts is quoted as being an important authority on Darwinism and geology- supported only by a sentence to the same effect on the general website reference used.... hardly a reliable or respected source. He is indeed knowledgable on Darwin and has a geology degree, probably an educated and informed character but there are many similar people with these qualifications who may or may not have an opinion on the subject. Does this mean, if i have a Biology degree with several publications and a personal interests in evolution, if im quoted on a website as an authority i can be used on Wikipedia...? I think this adds nothing to the piece other than another string to the bow for those of you with the agenda we are all aware of. I request its removal. --Woodward21 (talk) 12:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Roberts' bio is here. Clearly he is a reputable source worthy of being quoted. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen his bio before- he is an academic with publications relevant to geology and Darwinian history, but this dosen't make him an authority on the educational value or accuracy of material at Noah's Ark. Referring again to previous quotes made on other issues- this is another subjective edit, just because it may appear to some that a person or source is controverisal/reputable or other dosen't make it so if only a web reference gives that impression. And the motive behind its use is questionable here. --Woodward21 (talk) 12:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Woodward21, I don't think it is constructive to talk about "anti-creationist editors". It is recommended Wikipedia policy to assume good faith on the part of other editors. I am sure that all contributors to this page are acting in good faith, and want an objective article.

Inevitably there are differences of emphasis and that is what this discussion page is for.

For the record I am against removing the Michael Roberts quote as it reflects the range of opinion about this zoo, i.e. there are shades of grey on both sides, it is not a polarising issue, and the article should reflect that.

Peteinterpol (talk) 13:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Could we compromise by putting the Roberts' quotation in the notes? Stylistically it's awkward at the end of that paragraph anyway.--John Foxe (talk) 13:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi JohnFoxe, could we complete the debate on this page before making that change? I see you have already moved it there ahead of any consensus.

I think that the quote gets lost in the footnotes.

Peteinterpol (talk) 13:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you perhaps shorten the statement and integrate it better?--John Foxe (talk) 13:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The quote does not meet WP:FN - "to add explanatory material, particularly if the added information would be distracting if written out in the main article." It does not explain anything else in the text, and is not distracting - it is freestanding, adds to the article, and should not be a footnote. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

My concern is not with substance but with stylistic integration of the material. I dislike folks throwing the latest newspaper piece into Wikipedia without trying to integrate it with what's already there.--John Foxe (talk) 15:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair point. I'm happy with what's there now. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Me too, it does read better now.

Peteinterpol (talk) 15:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, it fits better now. I thought it was important to add it when I cam across it in the the Church Times, which btw has quite a few pieces on Noah's Ark ZF [12], because it illustrated a case of a notable CofE cleric supporting the BHA stance. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

In response to peteinterpol- i really would like to assume good faith in the motivations of other authors on this page, but unfortunately it is quite clear that several key editors on this page use it as a tool for their own agenda. A simple search of bristol newspaper forums etc show the same usernames popping up with criticism after criticism of the Zoo Farm- so please don't lecture me on my assumptions! I'm just striving for fair editing here and not a front for the scorning of a business. Sorry to be so blunt.--Woodward21 (talk) 16:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Woodward21. I note your comments. I'm surprised though; I have always found the contributors to this page, whether they seem to have pro- or anti- zoo views, willing to work together to achieve a sensible compromise within the WP guidelines.

As for myself, I've never contributed to a Bristol newspaper forum. Best wishes, Peteinterpol (talk) 17:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Archive?

Would editors have any objection to my adding an archive bot to this talk page as it has got quite long. I would suggest archiving threads which have not been added to in 30 days and adding a search box. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

OK by me. Peteinterpol (talk) 11:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

that's fine by me too --Woodward21 (talk) 16:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

OK I have set it up; threads that have not timestamps younger than 30 days will be archived next time MiszaBot runs - a minumum of five threads will remain on the page, whatever. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That needed to be done.--John Foxe (talk) 23:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of details of two awards received by NAZF

Just to let other authors know i've added details of two national awards received by NAZF (2009 - GTBS, 2010 - LOtC) to the opening section of the page.

These give some useful insight into the scale of the attraction and two important acheivements, which are benchmarks for the tourism industry.

I've referred to the GTBS site listing for NAZF and to a regional newspaper which covered the LOtC award press release (the LOtC website allows you to search for Quality Badge holders, where NAZF is listed, but holds no individual linkable business listings for any of its Badge holders so I haven't linked to the website, which I can however do if there is a desire for it.)

Woodward21 (talk) 11:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Elephant Eden size and status

I've today added reference to the section description of the Elephant Eden project at Noah's Ark Zoo Farm which cites the facility as the largest sanctuary for elephants in Europe(BEPP, Oct 29th). This status is agreed within the industry; the only larger complex for Elephants is to be found in spain (Cabárceno, 200,000 m2) and is not a sanctuary but an open range. The comment from Born Free is to be expected, as they disagree with any elephants kept in captive environments.(Woodward21 (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC))

Links with Circus

I'm planning to make some edits to this section, as it's currently slightly muddled and not a fair reflection of the issues involved here. The first sentence is misleading, as neither the BBC nor CAPS claimed that 'many' animals were owned by the GB Circus. The original claim refered to tigers and camels, nothing further. As the reference here is also not valid, I suggest this is rephrased. It's also important to make clear in this section that no breeding link was ever established between Noah's Ark and the GB Circus, this was a claim. Linctrek Ltd confirmed back in 2009 that tigers were on loan from this collection, and none of the tigers had performed in the circus, nor were there plans in place to use bred cubs from Noah's Ark for circus work in Martin Lacey's GB Circus. I feel that this section is deliberatley misleading, and doesn't abide by Wikipedia's ethos. I'll post here my proposed revisions for other authors to view and comment should they wish. (Woodward21 (talk) 11:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC))

I've edited the first two sentences of the 'Circus links' section to better describe both sides positions reflected in statements made by both parties. Have also removed a broken link (a reference to a 'not found' page on CAPS website). Will look to make further improvements now to give readers a clearer resource on this part of Noah's Ark's history. Hope other authors are happy with this. (Woodward21 (talk) 12:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC))

Image change

Hi all. I'm keen to replace the current image for the page, as it's a little outdated. I have some good quality images of some of Noah's Ark's zoo animals which I could put on Wikipedia Commons and link in here. These are more in line with Noah's Ark's growing profile as a zoo attraction. If no one flags this up as a problem, I'll action shortly. Thanks. (Woodward21 (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC))

Why don't you upload them to commons, then provide links here so editors can see them?

When adding/replacing images, remember that this is an article about the zoo, not about the animals. Photos should show context, not just be closeups of animals that could be in any zoo. Preferably they should illustrate the exhibit that is being described, except that this article doesn't really have an Exhibits section yet. Standard practice in zoo articles is to include a picture of the entrance as the infobox picture if one is available. Don Lammers (talk) 13:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

New material

New information was recently added by a Wiki author, citing success with endangered breeding (gibbons) and the zoo's involvement with national tourism schemes. Both are usueful additions, explaining the development of the zoo and efforts in sustainability - of public interest. I notice that another author removed these - citing they were marketing material?? Please refrain from making unconstructive edits of other authors work, simply where I presume the author in question (noticing his own editing historically on this page) has shown a tendency to preclude positive information on Noah's Ark from appearing on the page in favour of focus on creationism and controversy. Refer to the NPOV policy of wikipedia. I have undone these changes. Perhaps discuss with the author how to format these better if desired. (Woodward21 (talk) 12:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC))

I assume it is me to whom you are referring. I find your comments about my editing history both inaccurate and unfair. I have always tried to be balanced in my contributions to an article that has historically generated a fair amount of debate. Please note it is common practice on Wikipedia to assume good faith on the part of other editors unless there are good reasons not to. Best wishes. Peteinterpol (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Updated new animals

Hi all, I'm new to editing so hope that I have done my update correctly. Please advise if I haven't. I just added that the zoo now has poison dart frogs, and put a reference for that.Mmathgrad27 (talk) 15:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that the article should not be concentrating on listing whatever the latest addition of the day is -- per WP:RECENTISM. In fact the overly long list-of-animals should be trimmed down to only the most prominent of them (which most probably will not include the frogs). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree with that point. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that if the article was given a section on Exhibits, and at least the major exhibits described, the frogs would be appropriately listed under one of those exhibits. Usually the organization for a zoo would be "History", "Exhibits", and then "Other facilities". There is quite a bit about history here. Unfortunately, I can't find a map online, which is how I usually try to figure out the major exhibits. "Other facilities" would include the playgrounds and mazes. There are decent descriptions of these on the web site (and this is the kind of thing you can usually trust the primary source on). Currently the article looks like a discussion of the circus issue and creationism. Those sections will not look like they dominate the article if the rest of the article is expanded appropriately. Don Lammers (talk) 13:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

If it weren't for the circus and creationism controversies, I rather suspect that this topic would fail WP:Notability. Therefore it's rather hard not to give these topics considerable WP:WEIGHT. This zoo appears notable largely for its controversies, not its exhibits. Also, I suspect the amount of self-published material may exceed WP:SELFPUB. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Conservation

The 'Conservation' section is cited solely to two pages on the Zoo's own website & an inappropriate citation to a Wikipedia article (which makes no mention of the zoo). Lacking third-party confirmation of the significance/noteworthiness of this conservation work, I'm eliminating the section. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Placing of Awards material in this article

I tend to agree with Hrafn that if it weren't for the circus and creationism controversies, this article would fail WP:Notability. I am therefore surprised at the prominence recently given in the article to the zoo’s winning of awards that seem to be non-notable themselves. A quick Google of other UK zoos reveals that most have won awards as well, so there is little notable about Noah’s Ark’s ones. Therefore it is odd to have them referenced early in the intro and prominently in the article itself. Both changes have relegated the truly notable aspects of the zoo, its creatrionism and cotnroversies, to lesser prominence.

If we must refer to the awards let’s please treat them appropriately. A short section near the end of the article, if at all, but certainly not in the intro. I would welcome the views of other editors before making this change. Peteinterpol (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Awards are generally considered prima facie noteworthy if the award warrants its own article and is reasonably restrictive. Barring that, some evidence of noteworthiness is needed. In the case of the "Green Tourism Business Scheme", it seems that everybody who signs up gets an award, and that it is not particularly noteworthy. Lacking any third-party coverage, I therefore see no reason to retain this material. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  The 'Learning Outside the Classroom' Quality Badge, likewise seems unrestrictive and thus non-noteworthy, and the citation for it is broken (and was in any case only to a local newspaper, which does not add noteworthiness). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with Peteinterpol and Hrafn here, and will be seeking higher level authorisation from Wikipedia if this kind of activity continues. It's very clear here that several authors are ignoring NPOV in order to protect their desire to keep this page about their criticism of Noah's Arks links to creationism. That is not what Wikipedia is about. Noah's Ark Zoo Farm would be entitled to a Wikipedia page regardless of creation and circus controversy, and it is completely against the ethos of Wikipedia (remember Neutral POV?!) to create (excuse the pun for atheist authors here) a page designed to put across your own agenda. How can it be suggested that successfully breeding endangered primates (gibbons) is not a noteworthy issue for inclusion?! And to remove other authors work (some of them new authors on this page, who have made efforts to communicate their work) without discussion is again, contrary to what Wikipedia was created for. Perhaps these persons could spend some time studying the foundation of Wikipedia, the 5 Pillars, before continuing to be so disingenuous with your future editing. I'm open to fair discussion on revisions, but to remove noteworthy facts about important awards and animals is not fair.(Please, research your comments on GTBS and LOTC before making these comments - its clear from the description of both awards that an institution is not guarranteed an award simply by joinng the scheme; GTBS has strict half-day assessments and criteria, and the Quality Badge for the LOTC has only been awarded to a handful of educational attractions in the South West.... hence why certain atheists did not like the approval.)I have revoked some of the removals made. (Woodward21 (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC))

Woodward21:

1. Your comment violates WP:AGF.
2. No third-party coverage of conservation work = not noteworthy.
3. No articles on awards + no third party coverage of the zoo gaining the awards + awards non-restrictive = not "important"

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

With regards to the current dicussion about awards it is obvious with a little research into the GTBS and the LOTC awards (even using the links that Hrafn has provided in this discussion) that these awards are not just given to those who sign up but are only given after inspection. It would be politer to discuss deleting information with other editors, rather than simply deleting the information based on a single editors opinions. Further it is much easier for someone to assume good faith of other editors if this is reciprocated. I am now reverting changes back to how they were before this discussion and would appriciate other editors views on how to move forward with this. (Mmathgrad27 (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC))

If we are to talk about violation of Wikipedia policy, I would also advise Hrafn to familiarise himself with what constitutes a legitimate reference. The LOTC award was referenced to the Times Educational Supplement where it was covered in their national paper and online (link is to TES website - a legitimate source i think our authors would agree). The GTBS award was linked to the Bristol Evening Post article on the story - this is Bristol's largest press, and one of the largest regional papers in the UK. It is clear that there is a separate agenda in operation unfortunately here - I'll happily discuss edits with authors to make improvements or reasonable changes, but i think Wikipedia would be interested in exploring the problems we're having here with this page if it becomes necessary. (Woodward21 (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC))

Maze

Originally, this section cited:

1. A coordinates template (for the Zoo, not the Maze specifically)
2. A (broken) Guinness Book of Records link about a completely unrelated maze.
3. A link to their own website.
4. A link to a fairly blurby website advertising 'CHILDRENS ATTRACTIONS and kids entertainment'

I have eliminated the first two as irrelevant, and tagged the second two. Unless some solid third party sourcing is found, I would suggest that this section should likewise go. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree it just looks like advertising.Theroadislong (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:COI

Woodward21: do you work for/at Noah's Ark Zoo Farm? If so, you have a WP:COI on this topic and should not be editing it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I am a member of Noah's Ark Zoo Farm, and have been careful to keep my edits in line with WP:COI policy. For those with confusion on this policy, please re-read as it clearly explains that persons with an affliation with an organisation can contribute editorial to an artilce through a greater exercising of caution. I have kept to these guidelines, attempting to create discussion and communicate useful changes. These issues have now been handed to Wikipedia mediators for their comment, as it is clear this page does not satisfy WP:NPOV policy, with particular poor balance and tone reflected in editing by Hrafn and several other editors here meaning "good faith" cannot be legitimately assumed. It seems that several authors want to maintain an anti-Noah's Ark Zoo Farm tone which is clear to any reader, in the face of requests to balance the article. Focusing on cirus controversy and creationism only is very poor editorship and not in line with WP ethos. It is a shame. (Woodward21 (talk) 13:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC))

The article looks fairly well balanced to me, a large part of what makes the zoo notable at all, is it's circus controversy and creationist stance surely?Theroadislong (talk) 14:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Avoid editing or exercise great caution when editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors...

— WP:COI

You have neither avoided, nor exercised great caution in editing this article. You have rather edited it heavily and indiscriminately (as the article's edit history attests), favouring the zoo's own self-appraisal over independently sourced information. This is no more compliant with WP:NPOV than it is compliant with WP:COI.

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint.

— WP:NPOV

The vast majority of the reliably-sourced viewpoints expressed about the zoo have been about its creationism and circus controversies. Therefore NPOV requires that the majority of the article be about these controversies. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The way I see it is that any controversies about a subject, by their very nature, cause people to have opinions and discussion about the subject in question, and so they are obviously going to have more 3rd party sources than facts, which often do not have much to add to. Therefore I think it is quite difficult for anyone to have a fully WP:NPOV on any subject. This is why I feel everybody needs everybody else's opinion to balance out any slight bias we might have. We are all contributing to this page for a reason, and for different reasons, which is why we are conflicting on certain issues. My personal opinion is that (provided the information is correct), since the point of an encyclopedia is to inform the reader of a certain subject, the more information that can be included the better. And that perhaps instead of each of deleting others work we might make an effort to improve and correct it where neccessary. Just my thoughts, but would appriciate all yours too. (Mmathgrad27 (talk) 10:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC))

Mmathgrad27: your opinion appears to have little, if anything, to do with the policy actually articulated in WP:NPOV, nor does it give any clear suggestion of how that particular policy actually pertains to the case at hand. Wikipedia policy quite frequently contradicts an unqualified viewpoint of "the more information that can be included the better", so it is hard to see how this has any policy basis. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear Hrafn, I agree with you that often it seems that wikipedia policy does contradict what one would normally expect, and that since this article is on wikipedia we do need to follow wikipedia policy. On the other hand please remember wikipedia editing policy that:

"Wikipedia is here to provide information to people; generally speaking, the more information it can provide (subject to certain defined limitations on its scope), the better it is. Please boldly add information to Wikipedia, either by creating new articles or adding to existing articles, and exercise particular caution when considering removing information. However, it is Wikipedia policy that information in Wikipedia should be verifiable and must not be original research. Please show that information is verifiable and not original research by referencing reliable sources. Unsourced information may be challenged and removed, because on Wikipedia a lack of information is better than misleading or false information—Wikipedia's reputation as a trusted encyclopedia depends on the information in articles being verifiable and reliable. To avoid such challenges, the best practice is to provide an "inline citation" at the time the information is added (see: WP:Citing sources for instructions on how to do this, or ask for assistance on the article talk page)."

I was a little upset the other day that you seemed to remove another editors work without having challenged it. In the future please could you either suggest an improvement to a particular passage, or challenge it (I note that you have done this in the past and it may be that it was just this one occassion that you didn't)

I think it is important to note that we are all human and are prone to making mistakes- In particluar it seems I am not very good at explaining what I mean! Please remember wikipedia guidelines to help newcomers and in particular this part:

"When giving advice, tone down the rhetoric a few notches from the usual mellow discourse that dominates Wikipedia. Make the newcomer feel genuinely welcome, not as though they must win your approval in order to be granted membership into an exclusive club. Any new domain of concentrated, special-purpose human activity has its own specialized structures, which take time to learn (and which benefit from periodic re-examination and revision)."

I am new to editing and am only trying to help. I do not want to end up in a pointless argument with you as this does neither of us any good and does not help to improve the page we are both editing. I hope that we can both work well together in the future to improve this article along with the other editors of this page. (Mmathgrad27 (talk) 13:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC))

Mmathgrad27:

subject to certain defined limitations on its scope

One of those limitations is independence and reliability of sources:

Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

— WP:RS

Another is proportionality:

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint.

— WP:NPOV

So no, where "more information" means more self-description and a watering down of the prominent viewpoints then MORE INFORMATION IS BAD! This serves the important purpose of preventing articles from becoming a whitewash, that simply serves the purpose of WP:ADVERTISING the topic. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear Hrafn, I do agree with you about sources. Indeed that is why I left the whole of that quote as it was, instead of taking just a small protion of it. I do not disagree with any of your last post, so there is no need to shout at me. (Mmathgrad27 (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC))

As this discussion seems to have been quite for over six months, can the COI banner now be removed?— Rod ^talk 13:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

My feeling is no. Nothing has really changed. There may not have been any additions to the talk page discussions for six months, or much in the way of article additions, but the overall situation has not altered and the banner should remain. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 17:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but it does raise the question of what does need to happen to remove the COI banner. As I recall, there was one frequent contributor, Woodward21, who admitted to being personally involved with the zoo. So does someone need to go through and remove Woodward21's contributions? I know this is a contentious area so it would be good if consensus could be reached about the way forward. Peteinterpol (talk) 08:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Having just looked through Woodward21's edits and in light of the last two edits by other contributors (one by myself just now), I think there is a case for removing the COI banner. Many of Woodward21's more obviously biased contributions were reversed shortly after they were originally made, and the ones that survived have now gone with recent edits. Peteinterpol (talk) 05:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree.--John Foxe (talk) 14:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Another source

An article in today's observer Why I won't be going back to Bristol's creationist zoo may be a useful source.— Rod ^talk 13:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Amazed nobody has added this into the article before now. Done! GDallimore (Talk) 17:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources

The zoo website is a perfectly acceptable source for visitor numbers, and there is no rational reason for requiring a secondary source for such information. This is especially true when the latest self-published figure of 170,000 isn't a surprising figure given the 2005 number of 100,000 reported by James Russell in the Guardian and 120,000 in 2009 reported by the BBC. GDallimore (Talk) 17:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, the visitor numbers are being used as a promotional tool (Look how popular we are) they require an independent reliable source. Theroadislong (talk) 21:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

That is not a reason to remove the material, especially when the article does not draw any comparisons which could support your complaint. There is no reason to doubt the accuracy of the figures: THAT is the only reason to remove the material. GDallimore (Talk) 22:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Whatever the source of the 170,000 figure, I would question it in terms of the basic maths. According the the zoo's own website, it is open 1st Feb - 20th Dec but closed on Sundays. That's 286 days open a year. They are open 10.00-5.00 each day. Assuming the last visitors are let in at 4.30 each day, that's 6 hours a day. That means they are getting 593 visitors per day, or more than 1.5 every minute of every day. That strikes me as a massive throughput, especially as there will be 'lean' times based on time of day, time of year, weather and school terms, meaning that the 1.5 per minute needs to be much higher at other times. I think that 170,000 at least demands some closer scrutiny. Peteinterpol (talk) 08:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

There are comparable numbers in independent reliable sources from a few years back. I don't see how there is even an argument for you here unless you're going to say that the Guardian and BBC also got it wrong. GDallimore (Talk) 09:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, the BBC and the Guardian didn't state as high as 170,000. And given that no independently audited figures appear to be available, the most likely source of their figures was probably the zoo's website at the time. I'm not saying 170,000 is wrong, it just doesn't appear independently verifiable. Is there official Wikipedia guidance available on this? Peteinterpol (talk) 09:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Back from holiday. Thought I'd linked to the relevant policy here, but it was only in the article revision history: Wikipedia:USINGPRIMARY#You_are_allowed_to_use_primary_sources..._carefully. Think it's pretty clear: CAN say "170,000 visitors a year" based on their website but CAN'T say "a really popular attraction welcoming 170,000 visitors a year which means it must be good" based on their website. GDallimore (Talk) 11:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)