Talk:Ark Encounter/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Neutral point of view

Since I logged out yesterday, this seems to have generated far more heat that light. Article protection had an inevitability about it, but I note that it is shortly about to expire. I also note that one editor hit four reverts within half an hour, let alone 24 hours.

I may be a relative newcomer around here, but I think a good many people are losing sight of the fact that this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia. An encyclopaedia is intended to inform its readers about the subject being looked up. It is not meant to comment on the validity of the subject especially when it is so controversial (and the heat here is clear evidence of that). In this case: this is an article about a visitor attraction called 'Ark encounter'. The article should inform the reader what it is and what he can expect to find there. Given the controversy: it is not an encyclopaedia's function to comment on the validity of any message that the attraction is attempting to convey. Consequently, it would be perfectly alright to observe that the message is based on the creationist model of the origin of the earth (which is exactly what it is). It would also be alright to observe that it is the biblical version of events (which I believe it does). Those are facts and neutral points of view. It is not alright to then brand the message as pseudo-science or any other opinion which is intended to denigrate the purpose of the attraction. That is not a neutral point of view because there is no shortage of people on the planet who disagree with that view. People who support the evolutionary model will leap to their own conclusions without any assistance here.

It is obvious that those who keep editing in the material on pseudo-science, believe passionately in the evolutionary model of the origins. For every one of you, there is roughly one person who believes passionately in the creation model of origin. You would soon be complaining if some creationist branded the article Evolution as pseudo-science. To underline that point, there are several branches of the Christian religion that advocate the creationist model (and there has even been lawsuits in the US about which model schools in particular areas should teach).

There are also two mainstream religions (including one of the largest religions in the world) whose foundations are built firmly on the creationist model (and that large religion, ironically, brands the science that 'proves' evolution as pseudo-science and firmly rejects it. This article (and the project in general) is intended to be read by a broad readership. WP:NPOV says

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

Evolutionists insist that the sources supporting evolution are reliable and that any creationist sources are false and unreliable. However: the creationists believe the exact reverse is true and their opinion is just as valid as anyone else's. The references being used to support the pseudo-science claims are just opinions from others. It's fair to say that they are most likely evolutionists who reject the creation model. It would be just as easy to find creationist references of equal dubiousness who say the same about evolution and then claim that the Ark encounter presents a true picture of the origin of the universe. It's worth remembering that creationism was the sole mainstream model for thousands of years. Evolution is relative newcomer to the party. In case anyone is wondering, I support the evolutionist argument. I also support the article being entirely neutral and free from opinion and bias and (in case anyone hadn't noticed) that has been the nature of my three edits to it.

Discuss.

TheVicarsCat (talk) 12:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Whilst I agree that we should be neutral, it is hard to see how this is possible.Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many people believe in something and how many people do not believe in something. It does not matter if equal numbers of sources write about one and the other. What matters is the reliability of the sources and the extent to which they conform to scientific consensus when it comes to scientific matters. When it comes to what God said in the Bible, whether God exists, explaining the Trinity, etc., we don't need scientific sources, but when an organization makes scientific claims with pseudoscientific bases, it doesn't matter how popular those claims are. So yes, Wikipedia considers mainstream scientific sources to have precedence over sources which advocate for things like creation science. This is not the place to take issue with that, as it would require a fundamental change to WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGE. Recommend you carry this thread of discussion to one of those talk pages. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

There are no such people as "evolutionists". There are creationists - people who believe in literal biblical creation - and there's the majority, who accept the scientific conclusion about the origins of life. Creationism is a religious dogma, acceptance of science is a reasoned position based on evidence and does not require any form of belief other than a general acceptance of the reliability of the scientific method. Guy (Help!) 14:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

This is a religious theme park that very clearly calls itself Christian. I agree with the OP we should describe it neutrally and factually without nasty labels like "factually incorrect" and pseudoscience. Each of my edits have toward the goal of factually and neutral. This page is not a place to push an agenda of converting people to believe in evolution or creation. Nothing here is going to convince a single reader to reject creation or embrace evolution by turning this page onto an attack article. Going to a page on a natural history museum and edit warring in how the things presented there go against the religion of creationists would be equally problematic. Legacypac (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

If they stuck to just being faith based I might agree, the problem is they do make claims about scientific accuracy. That is why I say this is almost insoluble, they cannot keep their oar out of science (hell they even had a debate about the science with a non scientist). Thus their claims have to be examined and put into that context.Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

It's a religious theme park which makes pseudoscientific claims, pushed by an organization that exists to promote pseudoscience, with prominent criticism among the reliable sources for those claims. That it takes the form of an attraction doesn't mean we throw WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGE out the window. Enforcing those policies/guidelines is not "pushing an agenda of converting people to believe in evolution or creation". You're burning down multiple straw men here and your comments, e.g. in the section above you're encouraging us to "read [this textbook misunderstanding of NPOV commonly advanced against WP:FRINGE/WP:PSCI] a couple times" are increasingly concerning. I know that probably doesn't mean much coming from someone you think is trying to "convert" people to evolution through an article you see as similar (or at least compare for rhetorical purposes) to Disneyland. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

This is the core problem with the Ark Park. It's clearly a religious institution, yet they claim otherwise when asking for tax breaks. They claim to be educational. The claim of being educational, bogus though it undoubtedly is, invites immediate critique of the bullshit that the park pretends to teach. And it's not as if Wikipedia are the originators of criticism of this park. Ken Ham invited Bill Nye, a well known popular science educator with a long history in the creationism-v-reality "debate", to visit and debate him. The point of the ark park is, ion no small part,. to take on the reality-based community, setting Ham's creationist propaganda as an alternative to reality-based museums. The criticism is not accidental: he positively invites it. Guy (Help!) 14:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to take some time to read deep into the DS history. The positions you are pushing are inconsistent with everything I've encountered here in the last 10 years and 100,000 edits. I've edited heavily in terrorist topics without a problem so working under DS is not new to me. This is not an article about a scientific concept it is a page about a tourist attraction. No one is coming to this page to learn about science, so I'm really puzzled why there is such aggressive POV pushing to insert derogitory language. Legacypac (talk) 16:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I have some sympathy with this, but only to a degree. It is not like most tourist attractions, they very rarely push a viewpoint (in this respect it is closer to a museum).Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The guidelines for fringe content aren't limited to articles primarily about those concepts, but about the fringe topics in relation to any article. Sometimes there are differences in the best way to do so (e.g. when BLPs are involved).

More importantly, do you really not understand how this is not like Disneyland? You're repeatedly calling it a "theme park" -- something which calls to mind places like Disneyland, which you have drawn comparisons to. That's a seriously misleading approach and I have trouble seeing it as anything but disingenuous rhetoric. It is not preposterous to talk about pseudoscience simply because you're categorizing it as a "theme park". It is a "theme park" whose entire purpose is to advance an ideology/agenda, to "educate" about a particular view of history that it explicitly claims is "historically accurate", founded by an organization whose only purpose is to push that ideology/agenda, run by a person dedicated to pushing that ideology/agenda. It's not "just a theme park". It is, as its about us page of the website says "a Christian evangelistic outreach". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Don't call me disingenuous - that is a personal attack. As you note the theme park calls itself ""a Christian evangelistic outreach" which are three words in a row that clearly describe religion. Therefore the guidelines on Religion apply. Legacypac (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

"outreach is not about religion, it is about reaching out, be it political, religious or charitable. But the fact is descriptors are evangelical outreach means that it is unlike most theme parks. It explicitly says it is about spreading a message, not entertainment. No (by the way) it does not describe a religion, but a religious institution, they are not the same.Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Even so, what are our polices on religion?Slatersteven (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Given that they require every member of staff to sign a statement of faith based on fundamentalist Christian dogma, I don't think there's any real doubt. It's a religious installation. I was thinking of parallels and got stuck at Neil deGrasse Tyson demanding that every employee at the planetarium sign a declaration that God doesn't exist and Pluto isn't a planet. Guy (Help!) 14:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Not saying it is not, but what it is not is a religion parsee, it is part of one (in the same way that Disneyland is not Disney, but is part of it).Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Disney is not trying to teach the literal existence of talking mice in schools. This park exists to further an anti-science agenda that is directly linked to the prevalence of damaging nonsense such as climate change denial. It is not only fair to call it out as the pseudoscience it is, it is also an obligation per WP:NPOV. There is a long history in America of creationists claiming religious exemption when it suits them and then switching to claim to be "science" when that is more convenient. It's not a thing that fits into one bucket or another. This is proselytising of pseudoscientific (in the correct technical sense: they purport to have science) fundamentalist religious dogma. Guy (Help!) 07:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

In a religious/Christian context "outreach" = evangelism or at the very least community engagement to get people into the church eventually. @Guy an on target example is a Christian University that requires all staff to be members in good standing of the sponsoring church and/or requires signed statements of faith. If a 6 day creation is part of the doctrine that is what is taught along with evolutionary theories in context. Any prof that deviates from that is removed as is the institutions legal right and duty to the sponsoring organizations. Not to give anyone ideas but I don't see efforts to label such Christian schools as promoting pseudoscience. We just factually label them as Christian sponsored by such and such a church and link to a page that covers their church's beliefs. There is a range of origin briefs across Christians.[1] Legacypac (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe that is because not all of them promote pseudoscience, such as creationism. Not all Christians reject the scientific view of the universe. As to the tautology, it is clear the fact that are using evangelical and outreach means they are not using outreach to maen evangelical.Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Well this going nowhere. What we have is two camps; one of which wants the POV wording such as, "...promotes factually incorrect creationist beliefs ..." and, "pseudoscientific" etc. while the other does not want these remarks in. The two camps are of roughly comparable size. The only way this is going to be resolved is by a good old fashioned compromise.

Can we not use some wording along the lines of, "The theme park promotes creationist beliefs about the age of the universe, age of the Earth, and co-existence of man and dinosaurs on which modern scientific studies have thrown considerable doubt and has led to much criticism.<add suitable refs>" (serving suggestion). I know it's not exactly what either camp wants but we need to find some middle ground. It states the facts without the extreme POV and includes a (fairly) neutral statement about the questionability but also does leave it entirely uncommented upon. As I said before most readers will make up their own minds anyway.

Continue discussion...

TheVicarsCat (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

"considerable doubt" !!!!!! modern scientific study has completely dismissed it out of hand as nonsense, there cannot be a compromise of that proportion! Theroadislong (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Also I would add the idea that man and dinosaur coexisted is not an old concept, it was a response to evolution (not the other way around, in fact the dinosaur and evolution pretty much go hand in had in the history of science). Nor am I am sure that the age of the universe was ever considered until science came along, so we are left with the age of the Earth. This is so widely been disproved by Geology, Archaeology, Astronomy, well every damn ology (even most modern theology) that it is hardly a case of considerable doubt so much as overwhelmingly disputed.Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Wowwy. If that's your idea of a compromise we need to just have an RfC.

so we have the version I proposed above, the version jps proposed (I would argue that with jps seeming to be taking a wikibreak and no others advocating for that particular version, we should not include both of these versions since they're so similar), the version 1990'sguy proposed in that section, and the version TheVicarsCat has here. We could include the current version of the article, too, and the version before that change. Getting a little long with the proposals. Legacypac indicated he was going to come up with a draft, too. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• I've changed the one "pseudoscience" to "Young Earth creationism" because the citation being used to justify the use never used that phrase. We can't just draw inferences from sources, that is improper WP:synth. I don't doubt there are some sources that use "pseudoscience", then fine, use those sources, but don't put words into the mouth of the sources themselves. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • And now I see someone has reverted it, ignoring the source directly next to the claim, which is kind of fucked up. I could give a damn less about the religion aspects, but I do care about the accuracy, and I see we have too many blinded by their beliefs (or lack thereof) to properly use inline citations. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Reference number 4 [2] very clearly calls in pseudoscience. Theroadislong (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

And it uses the term "creationist", which you should agree is a more specific term. "Pseudoscience" can mean many, many things. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

and creationism is pseudoscience as the sources confirm. Theroadislong (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

But you want to use the broader and less specific term instead? --1990'sguy (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I want to use both as the Arbitration Committee Decisions on Pseudoscience suggests above. Theroadislong (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

That tag was added above only a couple days ago (and there wasn't even a consensus to add it, since one or two other editors removed it), and this is an article about an attraction, not a belief. I can see why the term would be used in the "creationism" article, but it makes no sense whatsoever to add it in the intro of an article like this (unless you want to go out of your way to make a point and right great wrongs). --1990'sguy (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The Arbcom decision is pretty clear, the principle is that pseudoscience such as this should be labelled and categorised as such.GliderMaven (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

There is a big difference between labeling snake oil pseudoscience and labeling the religious beliefs of a large group of people as expressed in a religious institution as pseudoscience. Discrimination on the basis of religion is illegal in many contexts for very good reason. Maybe we need to go back to ArbCom. Legacypac (talk) 23:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I started writing a reply, but after reading previous discussion, I decided to only quote GliderMaven: ...not all types of creationism are necessarily pseudoscientific. If it's a purely religious belief and supporters pointedly claim that it is unscientific, then it's difficult to sustain a position that it is pseudoscience. But where the claim is being made, as here by AiG, that creation science is scientific, that is certainly considered pseudoscience. byteflush _Talk 23:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not about labeling religious beliefs as pseudoscience. It's about labeling pseudoscientific claims pseudoscientific. AiG is not a church. It's an advocacy organization, and one which promotes a brand of creationism which a subset of members of a religion subscribe to. Whether or not something is believed by a subset of a religion, if it makes scientific claims based on pseudoscience, we label it as such as per WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGE and take the side of mainstream science. If AiG did not make [pseudo]scientific claims, and instead just talked about the nonscientific (as distinct from pseudoscientific) aspects of Christianity/the Bible, we would not be calling it pseudoscience. It's why our articles on creation science and intelligent design clearly label them as pseudoscience while the creationism article draws clear lines around the branches of creationism which are pseudoscientific. AiG's is squarely the latter. In other words, as stated countless times on this page, to say it's about "religious beliefs" is misleading, and to say that AiG or the Ark Encounter is a "religious institution" such that it should be protected from being labeled pseudoscience when it's based on pseudoscience is contrary to policy. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Is it registered as a church or a theme park?Slatersteven (talk) 08:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

"That is not a neutral point of view because there is no shortage of people on the planet who disagree with that view."

Are any of these people reliable sources? If not their opinion is irrelevant to Wikipedia.

"(and that large religion, ironically, brands the science that 'proves' evolution as pseudo-science and firmly rejects it. "

Newsflash, but religions do not have the authority to determine what is scientific or not. Ideas that do not follow the scientific method, typically contradict available evidence.

"However: the creationists believe the exact reverse is true and their opinion is just as valid as anyone else's. "

Either you are a very new editor, or you are trolling. Wikipedia:Fringe theories is part of our policy and clearly states:

• "Pseudoscience: Proposals that, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification. For example, since the universal scientific view is that perpetual motion is impossible, any purported perpetual motion mechanism (e.g. Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell) may be treated as pseudoscience. Proposals which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community, such as astrology, may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience."
• "Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia. For example, the lack of peer-reviewed criticism of creation science should not be used as a justification for marginalizing or removing scientific criticism of creation science, since creation science itself is almost never published in peer-reviewed journals. Likewise, views of adherents should not be excluded from an article on creation science solely on the basis that their work lacks peer review. Other considerations for notability should be considered as well. Fringe views are properly excluded from articles on mainstream subjects to the extent that they are rarely if ever included by reliable sources on those subjects."
• We specifically list Creationism as a good example of a fringe theory, along with intelligent design, Holocaust denial, moon landing conspiracy theories, and Paul is dead. (Personally I find both Holocaust denial and the moon landing conspiracy more plausible than creationism. Neither requires supernatural explanation or action by any deity.)
• "Creation science and Intelligent design – The overwhelming majority of scientists consider this to be pseudoscience and say that it should not be taught in elementary public education. However the very existence of this strong opinion, and vigorous discussion regarding it among groups such as scientists, scientific journals, educational institutions, political institutions, and courts of law give the idea itself more than adequate notability to have articles about it on Wikipedia."

"It would be just as easy to find creationist references of equal dubiousness who say the same about evolution and then claim that the Ark encounter presents a true picture of the origin of the universe. "

We could not, even if we wanted to. Familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (natural sciences): "Scientific information should be based on reliable published sources and should accurately reflect the current state of knowledge. Ideal sources for these articles include comprehensive reviews in independent, reliable published sources, such as reputable scientific journals, statements and reports from reputable expert bodies, widely recognized standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or standard handbooks and reference guides, and high-quality non-specialist publications. Although news reports are inappropriate as reliable sources for the technical aspects of scientific results or theories, they may be useful when discussing non-technical context or impact of science topics, particularly controversial ones. The scope of this page is limited to natural sciences, including astronomy, biology, chemistry, geoscience, physics, and interdisciplinary fields."

And while the Genesis flood narrative is obviously mythical and not scientific, it never included any claims on the origin of the universe. The creation account belongs to an earlier chapter in the Book of Genesis, and has nothing to do with floods, arks, or Noah. Dimadick (talk) 10:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

"It is not preposterous to talk about pseudoscience simply because you're categorizing it as a "theme park". It is a "theme park" whose entire purpose is to advance an ideology/agenda, to "educate" about a particular view of history that it explicitly claims is "historically accurate", founded by an organization whose only purpose is to push that ideology/agenda, run by a person dedicated to pushing that ideology/agenda."

Here I disagree. Amusement parks/Theme parks often do feature "historic" or "educational" attractions that feature an anachronistic and sanitized version of past eras, and often do exist to serve as little more than propaganda venues. We have articles on such amusement parks as Holy Land USA and Holy Land Experience. And Disneyland features Main Street, U.S.A. an idealized replica of late 19th and early 20th century American settlements, which makes no allusion to the era's actual social problems and political conflicts.

In the words of Walt Disney himself: "For those of us who remember the carefree time it recreates, Main Street will bring back happy memories. For younger visitors, it is an adventure in turning back the calendar to the days of their grandfather's youth." This "carefree" depiction completely overlooks the Baring crisis (1890), the Panic of 1893 (with ever-increasing unemployment, constant threat of starvation, and an expanding population of American prostitutes), the Panic of 1896 (new increases in unemployment, several prominent suicides, a new wave of antisemitism, and rising political conflict), the Panic of 1901 (the first stock market crash on the New York Stock Exchange), and the Panic of 1907 (a decline of the New York Stock Exchange caused a wave of bankruptcies). The United States were in a state of almost constant crisis for two decades. Dimadick (talk) 11:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

It is clear that no one seems to have any intention of finding compromise wording but is still determined to get their preferred version in the article. Even GliderMaven has resorted to edit warring in the article even though there is a discussion about it going on here (though going nowhere). I Have said my pieces above and am ducking out of this because the particular horse that each has chosen to flog is well beyond deceased. No one, it seems, has any intention of finding wording acceptable to all. Good luck with it. TheVicarsCat (talk) 12:52, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

"The theme park promotes creationist beliefs about the age of the universe, age of the Earth"

Not all creationists support Young Earth creationism. Supporters of Old Earth creationism do not dispute the scientific findings on the age of the Earth, but believe that an eternally-living deity was driving the entire billion-years long process of creation and development of life. Depending on the OEC variants, some of these people accept microevolution, but reject macroevolution and do not view natural selection as a random process. Several of them also adhere to some notions that all events in natural history were part of a divine plan.Dimadick (talk) 13:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

"The theme park promotes creationist beliefs about the age of the universe, age of the Earth, and co-existence of man and dinosaurs on which modern scientific studies have thrown considerable doubt and has led to much criticism.<add suitable refs>" is wording I can support. It shows the criticism and gives it great prominence via cites and wikilinks without editorializing. Make no mistake this theme park is a religious institution with a religious agenda, which it's fiercest critics are quick to point out. Therefore we need to treat it as religion. For many Christians belief in creationism is a core religious belief and test of faith. It's not about calling science wrong, or rejecting the scientific method, it is about who their God is and how He interacts with humanity. Legacypac (talk) 05:45, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

"on which modern scientific studies have thrown considerable doubt" is the understatement of the year. Science has completely atomized those beliefs and has danced on their graves for more than a century now. The fact that there are still people who hold those beliefs does not change that. Those people are ignoring facts, something which humans are very good at. But this is an encyclopedia, and its job is to not ignore facts.

This matter has been discussed to death for at least a decade on WP now. There is an arbcom decision about it. WP:SCICON, WP:PSCI, WP:FRINGE, WP:Lunatic charlatans, WP:!VOTE apply. Every few months, some user notices that there is a problem, but fails to notice that it has long been resolved. Sometimes it is the same user as last time, for example 1990'sguy. FOrgetting inconvenient facts is also something humans are very good at. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

"Pseudoscience" revert warring in the article

As I stated above, the ruling of arbcom is that:

"Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community, may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience."

The following people have edit warred this out:

• Legacypac
• 1990'sguy

If the above people or anyone else removes the correct characterisation of the content of the museum as pseudoscience, then I will request discretionary sanctions for their being blocked from all YEC articles, and I expect that I will be successful in that per the arbcom ruling. There will be no further warnings.GliderMaven (talk) 03:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

You have edit warred User:GliderMaven and you might be sanctioned. This issue was well debated and you are now the one inserting a non-consensus derogatory word. As I pointed out in my edit summary there are plenty of descriptive words and wikilinks. This is also clearly labeled as a Christian theme park, which means they are entitled to talk about their religious beliefs and we should rightly reflect what those beliefs are in a neutral factual way. Wikipedia is not in the business of labeling religious beliefs as false. Legacypac (talk) 05:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

It's quite factual to describe this stuff as pseudoscience. Being a "Christian" theme park does not contradict that. And you must face the reality that many Christians also think the ark is a pile of nonsense. That's factual too. HiLo48 (talk) 06:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Pseudoscience template

Recently, GliderMaven (talk · contribs) added {{pseudoscience}} to several articles, including this one, Creation Museum, and Answers in Genesis, the three that happened to be on my watchlist. Since none of those articles are linked from the pseudoscience template – and given that WP:BIDIRECTIONAL says, "Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional." – I reverted that addition on all three articles. Theroadislong (talk · contribs) restored the template on this article only and suggested I take this to the talk page for consensus, so here we are.

This is not (yet another) discussion about whether creation science should be called pseudoscience. This is a discussion of the application of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL in these particular instances. The policy says that articles on which the template appears should include a link to the article itself. To me, the burden is on anyone who contends that the template belongs to show why we should disregard the policy in this case. This template is supposed to be a navigation aid, not additional article content. I contend it is not serving a navigational purpose and should not appear on any article not linked from the template itself. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I saw this and was going to say something if 1990'sguy was undone (as it stands the template is not in the article). Agreed that this is just a basic style issue. I would also add that this article doesn't really seem like a good fit for inclusion in that template, either, since the kinds of pseudoscience that apply to this article (and the creation museum) have their own articles that are included (we wouldn't include the names of every acupuncture term, advocate for conversation therapy, book about cryptozoology, etc. in that template either). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed... having read the policy, my apologies for the revert. Theroadislong (talk) 14:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

attendance

@Isoron27000: Thanks for doing the research to improve the page. After starting to rework it to remove the tables and do some copyediting, I wound up just removing it again. The reason is that the only sources here are the ones you've pulled from the local government. We need secondary sources to report on this stuff first rather than dig up records in order to juxtapose/contradict other sources. If the contradiction is significant, other sources will report on it (hopefully?). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: I must confess I'm rather nonplussed. Wikipedia articles routinely cite official records pulled from a wide range of governmental and quasi-governmental institutions - local and national. The attendance figures provided are simply stated in the context of a section headed "Attendance". What's wrong with that? Why is a secondary source required to report on this first? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isoron27000 (talk • contribs)

Context matters a lot, but it largely comes down to WP:WEIGHT and WP:OR. "Weight" is the idea that we should cover aspects of a subject in proportion to which they're covered in reliable sources. If an aspect of the subject hasn't been covered by secondary sources at all, it's usually best to omit it. It's for the same reason that I removed content based just on Ham's own words (it's a primary source -- if it's significant, a secondary source will report on it). There are some things, like basic facts about the subject (its name, year of founding, city it's based in, birthdate, catalog number, parent company, etc.) that make sense to pull from primary sources, but primary sources are, in general, best avoided when they're the only source of something. It's explicitly "original research" if any analysis, interpretation, synthesis, etc. is based just on primary sources (or required to understand the primary sources). In this case, you have "monthly safety assessment reports" being used to contrast with predictions about park attendance. It strikes me as a little bit too far to use these forms for that purpose without another source having contextualized them. In the ordinance document it's unclear, at first pass, whether there are cases when additional charges would lead to additional fees, whether there are some individuals/groups charged together, whether some tickets were separated under special events that had to be reported separately, etc. To be clear, your interpretation is the most obvious, and you're almost certainly right; my point is that it would be a different story (though still potentially a weight issue) if we had just a single primary source that said "in november 2018, attendance at the attraction was 50,000" rather than these fees. Possibly others disagree with my reading of it, though... In general, and especially for controversial subjects, I think that we should not be including anything that hasn't been covered in secondary sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Isoron27000: (Due to an edit conflict, this will be largely redundant.) There are a few issues at play here. First, per WP:PRIMARY: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia". After my initial reversion, you re-added the attendance numbers cited to documents on Wikimedia Commons. The issue is not where you got these documents, but who, if anyone, published them. If the only place they were published was on Commons, that would fail the criterion that the primary source be reliably published. Anyone could fake a document like that and put it on Commons. I am not accusing you of doing that. I don't have any reason to doubt the veracity of the numbers or that they were obtained reliably and ethically. I'm simply saying that's why the policy exists. So unless a reliable source publishes the numbers, we can't cite them.

Second is the matter of WP:OR. In both your initial edit and your reversion, the numbers are added alongside the statements "In an opinion piece authored for The Courier-Journal in November 2017, Ken Ham predicted, “1.4 million to 2.2 million” visitors over the second year of the Ark’s existence. That assumed an average of approximately 117,000 visitors a month, a figure achieved during July of 2017 but not since." The last sentence there constitutes original research. Again, per WP:PRIMARY: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." The sentence interprets the data to say that Ark Encounter will not meet the attendance predictions put forward by Ham in November 2017. We don't know what assumptions Ham made to come to his estimates. Even if the interpretation is totally true, unless a reliable third party comments on it, it runs afoul of policy.

Finally, listing these attendance figures without linking them to some kind of third party commentary violates WP:UNDUE. You'll notice that all attendance-related information currently in the article is derived from third-party commentary (i.e. there was something about the attendance that was noteworthy, according to the sources). For example, the fact that the attraction won an award for boosting tourism in Northern Kentucky. What noteworthy thing does it tell us that attendance in January 2018 was 13,250? Without some relevant commentary, not much. And if no one has bothered to comment on it, then it probably isn't worth a mention in the article. I compared this to the articles on some other attractions. Walt Disney World has a section on Attendance because it ranks top 10 in the world. Kentucky Kingdom, Six Flags St. Louis, and Holiday World & Splashin' Safari – just to use some that I'm familiar with – have no attendance section at all because their attendance apparently has not been commented on in reliable sources. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I have used a secondary source to state attendance numbers. If we are going to continue this we might want to use a chart as the way I have it written in the text of the article makes it difficult to follow the numbers. I'm happy to do that if others agree.Sgerbic (talk) 00:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

What kind of park? What kind of Christianity?

In the lede currently it says

Ark Encounter is a Christian evangelical theme park that ...

In the beginning, there was no such definitiveness. Up to late April 2016 it was

Ark Encounter is a planned religious theme park scheduled to open ...

13:52, 27 April 2016 it was changed to

Ark Encounter is a planned Christian theme park scheduled to open ...

Upon opening, 13:16, 7 July 2016 changed to

Ark Encounter is a Christian theme park that opened ...

17:40, 6 September 2016 it was changed to

Ark Encounter is a Christian fundamentalist theme park that ...

12:54, 27 April 2017 it was changed to

Ark Encounter is a Christian evangelical theme park that ...

14:31, 29 April 2017 it was changed to

Ark Encounter is a Christian evangelical and fundamentalist theme park that ...

00:46, 2 April 2018 it was changed to

Ark Encounter is a Christian evangelical theme park that ...

I think I see potential labelling strains here of both "isolate and denigrate" and "no, no, we're really broad-based!" (I peeked at the AiG article which says 'fundamentalist'.)

I worry about descriptiveness vs. claims of approval vs. opportunistic identification, in which terms are used and where. What it is is 'for-profit'. Its 'mission' may be something else. Its centerpiece is 'biblical'. Its sponsorship seems to be 'Kentuckian' (given the tax controversies). Its associations may be asserted as one or another religious type or affiliation, but on what basis?

What is the minimal added description of this place that doesn't claim status/approval that could be disputed? Shenme (talk) 03:40, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

The next paragraph says it's operated by AIG, "a young Earth creationist organization". Doesn't that make it "a young Earth creationist" theme park? I recommend we just leave the description (in all its variations) out of the first sentence, and let readers draw their own conclusions from the fact that it's run by AIG, which is quite accurately described soon after. HiLo48 (talk) 03:51, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

• This park is not about Christianity in general. If so, it would be full of exhibits on Jesus, Paul and Peter. But it's not, it's full of exhibits espousing creationism. So that's what kind of theme park is it. Besides, that's what the sources all call it, even the most conservative sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The lead has now been changed to reflect both the sources and this discussion. It will be interesting to see how stable it remains. HiLo48 (talk) 00:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

[3] also mentions it's "young earth creationism", [4] uses the term "creationist religious" to describe the organization. I think "creationist" or "young earth creationist" would be fine. —PaleoNeonate – 02:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• The correct term is creationist. Not all evangelicals are creationists, this is an explicitly creationist exhibit. Anything other than creationist is misleading. Guy (Help!) 13:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
• "Creationist" as in this version of the article. More appropriate in the 1st sentence. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
• Christian evangelical: The A.E. strongly emphasizes the gospel, and as I recall, the reason why it got into that lawsuit against the State of Kentucky was because it had an evangelistic purpose. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Was this the lawsuit where AiG sued the state? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the one decided by Gregory F. Van Tatenhove. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I frankly don't see the relevance here. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

The lawsuit would never have happened if AiG only kept the science stuff in the theme park and took out the evangelistic (gospel) portions (of which there is a great deal, prominently displayed). The park clearly is Christian evangelical, prominently promoting mainstream evangelical beliefs on salvation/the gospel in addition to YEC. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

That would imply that creationism is a core element of Christian Evangelism. I don't believe it is. Our Evangelism article doesn't even mention creationism. HiLo48 (talk) 02:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

That's WP:OR -- the A.E. clearly emphasizes AiG's belief that everyone who confesses of their sins and puts their faith in Jesus Christ alone and surrender to Him will be saved. I didn't mention YEC in that statement, but it's still true for the A.E. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:08, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

The fact that our Evangelism article doesn't even mention creationism is not WP:OR. And I am extremely suspicious that someone insisting on capitalising random words like "him" is coming here with an established, non-neutral POV on the matter. HiLo48 (talk) 02:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

We all have a POV, and the capitalization is a form of respect -- nothing wrong with that, as long as it's not on mainspace. What matters is that we're able to not let that POV creep into our mainspace edits. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Re: The lawsuit would never have happened if AiG only kept the science stuff in the theme park and took out the evangelistic (gospel) portions... -- that's WP:OR. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

That's according to KY. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

KY? I searched, and found a personal lubricant. It's also been a brand for preserved fruit and jams where I live. I suspect neither is what you mean. HiLo48 (talk) 02:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

KY = Kentucky --1990'sguy (talk) 02:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah. Thank you. I'm not American, so such things don't spring to mind. HiLo48 (talk) 03:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

if AiG only kept the science stuff which science? —PaleoNeonate – 08:37, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Creation science. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

"christian evangelical" is too broad; lots of evangelical christians do not also embrace YEC. This representation of AiG as "mainstream" is just PR. Jytdog (talk) 19:00, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I was only referring to AiG's beliefs on how one goes to Heaven (the most important doctrinal issue in Christianity) -- on that issue, they are solidly within the mainstream of evangelical Christianity. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

All Christians believe in going to heaven; not just Evangelicals. Softlavender (talk) 13:27, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

On how one goes to heaven. Christians disagree on this -- Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, mainline Protestant, evangelical Protestants. AiG's view is completely in line with the latter. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:29, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Evangelical is still too inadequately specific a description, per the reliable independent sources, and does not adequately explain a preoccupation with YEC, Noah's Ark, and flood geology. Softlavender (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• Fundamentalist Christian, young earth creationist That is what it is. see NYT ref "Mr. Ham’s “Ark Encounter,” built at a cost of more than $102 million, is scheduled to open on July 7 in Williamstown, Ky. Mr. Ham and his crew have succeeded in erecting a colossal landmark and an ambitious promotional vehicle for their particular brand of Christian fundamentalism, known as “young earth” or “young universe” creationism." Jytdog (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
• Creationist. I was hoping not to !vote. I was wishing for not using any term which to some readers would be disparaging or insulting. 'Christian' is divisive, trying to associate the widest possible group with this particular belief. 'Evangelical' has the same problem, begging the credibility of a wider movement. 'Fundamentalist' has somewhat less of this fault. Any combination with any of these terms is an attempt to assert credibility and acceptability.

'Creationist' is the only accurate label to use in the lede. It most accurately circumscribes the domain.

As someone replied to me, "Of course they want to put it into the mainstream. A boat that big won't float otherwise." Shenme (talk) 21:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• Fundamentalist Christian, young earth creationist Per the NYT ref. -- Softlavender (talk) 13:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
• young earth creationist – this subject is notable for its perspective on science, not necessarily the religious views of its founders. Bradv 15:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Name for Noah's wife

A discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#How_do_we_deal_with_a_RS_being_factually_incorrect.3F --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Gift shop and restaurant

Preserving here by providing this link -- I've boldly removed the mentions of the gift shop and restaurant, as Wikipedia is not a WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE. In any case, the presence of these at Ark Encounter is not remarkable and does not need to be mentioned. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I broadly agree, and won't contest your removal, but I found the name of the restaurant "educational". It's always intriguing to me to see the thinking of these people. HiLo48 (talk) 01:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

It's pretty common for attractions to have "cute" names for their eating establishments. It's a nn restaurant, so giving its name does not appear to be necessary. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree, not particularly notable to mention. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 09:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Ham's complaints about attendance need an independent reference

Otherwise, we're simply using Wikipedia as a venue to promote his opinions, in violation of NOT and POV. --Ronz (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Attendance blow-by-blow

In regard to this reversion, I don't believe this addition is necessary or tells us very much. First of all, it isn't even talking about attendance for an entire year, only a single quarter. It also doesn't tell us how much attendance was down, just that it was down. And, as has been pointed out when Phelps first started publishing this information, calculating attendance in this way does not account for several categories of unpaid visitors, as noted in the article. Finally, the information is presented as fact, when it is, in fact, original research by an outspoken critic of the Ark Encounter. The Herald-Leader is simply reporting that the biased source (Dan Phelps) calculated and published these figures via an unreliable (in Wikipedia terms) biased source (a blog called "The Friendly Atheist"). The paper is not vouching for those numbers nor Phelps' methodology. But this edit states as unquestioned fact that attendance is down, without any qualification. There is no need to add it to the article every time anyone says anything about attendance numbers at Ark Encounter. It is not of lasting encyclopedic significance. If the trend continues over a year or multiple years, it would be significant and should be added at that time. We wouldn't report attendance for a single quarter of a single year for any other attraction. Why should this one be treated differently? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Wow, I am so tempted to answer that final question, but I know there would be little point. HiLo48 (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

So, is this snarky comment the only thing that anyone will offer in defense of this addition? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not ever going to simply uncritically report every self-interested word that comes out of Ken Ham's, or really anyone's mouth, so no, we're not going to take his words at face value, and so yes it is going to continue to report reliable objective third party information on attendance, even if it reports only a partial picture, where available. GliderMaven (talk) 18:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Please tell me how removing this single sentence amounts to "uncritically report[ing] every self-interested word that comes out of Ken Ham's... mouth." The article already reports how Dan Phelps is calculating attendance, and what he calculated the attendance at Ark Encounter to be in its second year of operation versus what Ken Ham claimed it was, and it notes the possible reasons for differences between the two. I'm simply saying, per WP:NOTNEWS, that we don't need to add it to the article every time some newspaper reports Phelps' latest calculation published on his atheist buddy's blog. Absent some major event connected to it, there is literally no enduring encyclopedic value for the attendance in the first quarter of the third year of this attraction's operation. Annual figures are sufficient. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, since no one was willing to answer my question or really engage in much discussion at all, now we have an editor actually reporting the words out of Ken Ham's mouth (er... Twitter account). I'm not in favor of that addition, by the way, nor of the redundant bit about paying customers cited to the "Friendly Atheist" blog. I would probably re-word the bit about the city's budget, but it was reported by a neutral source and is somewhat noteworthy, so keeping it should be OK. I still, of course, object to reporting the quarterly attendance that occasioned this post originally. It's simply not of any lasting value. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree -- we're an encyclopedia, not a news source or a records book full of trivial facts. If such a small attendance detail is of lasting encyclopedia value, we obviously should include it, but there's nothing of lasting value of this info. Also, we should remove the party cited by the Friendly Atheist blog, especially because the source is POV and a blog. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• I don't know how germane that addition is; it was reported in the news but as to its lasting significance I am not sure. However, I have removed the even more minute and granular blow-by-blow that someone just now added [5] because that is not noteworthy and not Wikipedia's purpose to report. Softlavender (talk) 02:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Math is hard.

Under "History", the "Design and construction" subsection has for nearly 2½ years read (bolding mine): "AiG considered twelve different possible lengths for the biblical cubit, and AiG chose to use a length of 20.1 inches (51 cm); this produced plans for an ark measuring 510 feet (155 m) long, 85 feet (26 m) wide, and 51 feet (16 m) high." The problem with this statement can be shown mathematically, as follows:

30 × 20.1 ÷ 12 = 50.25

50 × 20.1 ÷ 12 = 83.75

300 × 20.1 ÷ 12 = 502.5

30 × 20.4 ÷ 12 = 51

50 × 20.4 ÷ 12 = 85

300 × 20.4 ÷ 12 = 510

That the stated, internally inconsistent, measurements could stand for so long is just mind-boggling. Anyone who spent significant time editing all around these figures, trying to bolster the article's quality, but missing this obvious incongruity of basic fact, should in my humble opinion stop and take stock of what, exactly, it has been that they have been trying to accomplish.--IfYouDoIfYouDon't (talk) 03:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

The wikitext shows those results come from {{convert}} which I personally guarantee to be correct!

• {{convert|510|ft|m|0}} → 510 feet (155 m)
• {{convert|85|ft|m}} → 85 feet (26 m)
• {{convert|51|ft|m}} → 51 feet (16 m)

The reason that is correct is that a measurement of 510 feet is not intended to mean exactly 510.0 feet. Convert rounds the output to a comparable degree of significant figures in the input with some tricky rules on top. In the first convert |0 means that an editor has requested that the result be rounded to 0 decimal places. Johnuniq (talk) 04:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Genesis flood narrative is a neologism

In the lede, the term Genesis flood narrative is used as a placeholder for the bible story to which AiG built the attraction in homage. The problem is that this is a Wikipedia neologism, it is by no means the most COMMON way to describe this particular bible story. As such, the wording is clunky and serves mainly to try to elevate a mythology to the level of high literature in a rather insidious way. As such, I suggest reverting this edit. jps (talk) 20:12, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

If it's a neologism, start a move request at Talk:Genesis flood narrative. That's the actual page name, and there's nothing "insidious" about not piping a link, particularly one that's very relevant to this article's topic. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a poor argument. I will clean up the other article by discussing it over there. In the meantime, please self-revert your removal of the tag as I'm trying to get some discussions going on this topic and we need extra eyes, and I note that you were not too recently involved in some nasty discretionary sanctions stuff in a related topic. jps (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

"Genesis flood narrative" seems like a perfectly natural way to describe the bible story. One editor making the claim that it is a neologism does not make it so. - Nick Thorne ^talk 21:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

It isn't used in common parlance by any metric. jps (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a need to include the tag. It doesn't point to a specific discussion, so it isn't likely to accomplish the stated goal of getting more eyes on a discussion of whether the wording constitutes a neologism. If your intent is to get more eyes on such a discussion, starting an RfC and publicizing it appropriately is likely to do far more than including a contested tag in this article. At present, the link leads to the article in question by linking to its title. If that title changes as a result of a community consensus, a change to the link is appropriate, and I doubt that 1990'sguy would argue that fact. As it stands, there have been no shortage of skeptical eyeballs on this article since it was created, and no one has yet raised this issue, so it apparently isn't as obvious a problem to others as it is to you. That's not to say the community may not eventually accept your reasoning, but it certainly isn't cut and dried.

Your claim that "the wording ... serves mainly to try to elevate a mythology to the level of high literature in a rather insidious way" does not assume good faith, especially if directed at 1990'sguy, who I doubt is personally responsible for that article's title. (If not directed at him, it still assumes bad faith on the part of whoever is responsible.) Additionally, your comment that 1990'sguy is "under heightened scrutiny" sounds like a not-so-veiled threat to get him to acquiesce to your request, which isn't in the spirit of WP:CIVIL. Please start your discussion, and we'll evaluate the appropriateness of any changes to the link once it has played out. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

An RfC is the next step. The first one is to get some people who are reading for various reasons to come to the talkpage. In any case, it is clear that 1990'sguy is WP:POVPUSHing in favor of creationist POV, but I do not accuse this of being bad faith. How can he not do this? It is his faith to do so and he has argued as much many times. What I will say, though, that the argument you are making that we need to wait is also one of accommodationism. I'm happy to wait, but I note that your rhetorical flourish is also tainted by your own history of advocating for creationist accommodation. jps (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

jps you are sailing dangerously close to personal attack territory. Remember to comment on content not editors. - Nick Thorne ^talk 22:12, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I started the thread below to make the distinction. jps (talk) 00:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't see the argument that "Genesis flood narrative" is a neologism at all. A neologism is a new word and this is a descriptive phrase. It does not seem to be an overly complex, ornate or confusing phrase. It does not seem to be a phrase with either positive or negative connotations. It serves neither to elevate nor to denigrate. Also, it is the name of the article that the subject has, suggesting as 1990'sguy says, that this is not the best place to discuss any fundamental objections to the term.

I'm bemused as to any phrase that could be considered better. "Genesis flood story" conveys the same meaning but seems to denigrate one of the central myths of some of the world's main religions as mere "story". "Genesis flood myth" would be no better. The believers would complain that "myth" is loaded with an assumption that the narrative is both untrue and no longer believed. They would have a fairly valid point.

While "story" and "myth" do have far more of a feeling of literature about them, "narrative" does not. A narrative can either be true or false. Obviously fiction is based on narrative but so are factual things. In some jurisdictions a coroner can return a "narrative verdict", which is anything but a fiction.

I think the only possible other option is to go back to piping it as "description". That wouldn't be the end of the world but I don't see any real need to do it. Of course, other people may have suggestions that are better than this but I certainly don't see any valid reason to be so upset about the current wording. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

"Bemused"? There are all kinds of options, "Noah's flood" is the most common option. Note that myth is an academic term. It also is true that this particular myth is demonstrably false. That's neither here nor there, of course, and "believers" have no right to declare this to be an unacceptable "POV". It isn't. It's simply a fact. jps (talk) 00:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I, for one, am familiar with the academic connotation of "myth", and when the term is used in conjunction with this or other biblical accounts, I understand what the author intends by it. But I think that may not be the case for many general readers, and I agree with DanielRigal that "[some or many] believers would complain that 'myth' is loaded with an assumption that the narrative is both untrue and no longer believed". While I fully understand that Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, per WP:GRATUITOUS: "Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." I realize we are talking about material that would only be offensive to a small subset of readers, but I think some consideration should be given to the idea of an "equally suitable alternative" that is just as "informative, relevant, or accurate", as DanielRigal proposes above. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The "equally suitable" alternative should not be a novel coinage. I also think that common terms should be used. Most believers' call it "Noah's flood" or something equivalent. That's a perfectly fine label. "Genesis flood narrative" is clunky and I highly doubt anyone uses it in normal exchanges. The google searches I've done all point to it being far less preferred than other descriptors. jps (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd be fine with "Noah's flood", personally, but I'm also not opposed to a new construct that is hammered out as a result of a compromise. I don't really think that runs afoul of WP:NEOLOGISM. Anyway, I'll try to keep an eye on that discussion when it materializes. For now, I think the appropriate course of action on this article, given the current state of this discussion, is to leave the neologism tag out of it, for now, and wait for the result of the broader discussion. If we can agree to that, for the time being, I think we're done here. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes it is a myth, and should be treated no differently form any other.Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)