Talk:Denver Museum of Nature and Science

Controversy

Although the museum offers many diagrams and explanations of the known theory of evolution, representatives of Biblically Correct Tours [1] insist on teaching creationism on museum tours, to the chagrin of the many of the museum's employees. They claim that the earth is only 6000 – 10000 years old, despite the fact that there is a display in the museum which explains how and why radiometric dating is so accurate and credible.[2] [3][4]

Formal WP:NPOV / Wikipedia:NPOV dispute review. LanceBarber (talk) 00:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This section in Denver Museum of Nature and Science#Controversy is written with a non-neutral point of view. Should it be re-written OR not included in the main article? Please comment and advise for resolution. Thank you. LanceBarber (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

An editor concerned with this issue discussed it with me at my talk page after I mistakenly reverted a change on this issue. I think the crux is an outside company, who I'm not entirely sure should be covered in this article at all. What do their beliefs matter in the discussion of the museum? TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 01:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

They don't, to be blunt. I'd argue for the whole "Controversy" section being removed, or perhaps added to a new article about Biblically Correct Tours - their website indicates they offer a wide range of tours beyond Denver. DMNS doesn't sponsor the group, and (as mentioned) their own displays contradict what BC Tours teaches. To reiterate, though, the controversy doesn't belong in this article. Duncan1800 (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree. The reason I reverted the removal ages ago was because it was done with no explanation and as the material was sourced, it appeared to be a case of white washing. I'm sure this museum isn't the only one or even close where some gtoup offers tours that disagree with the presented material. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 23:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I've advised another editor who also brought it to my talk that the discussion needs to stay here as I'm not interested in this article or the conteroversies surrounding the museum TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that this section should be removed. The supposed "controversy" lies only with this particular religious group and would apply to any institution that doesn't toe the line as they see it. I would add a vote for its removal. An absurd yet apt comparison would be a "controversy" section in an article about a cemetery because Fred Phelps holds protests there. Janus303 (talk) 06:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Should just be removed. Mostly irrelevant. Period.--nblschool (talk) 02:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed the dispute tag because it seems to be resolved, plus it's really an article page tag not a talk age tag, and it was causing the page to show on the Colorado portal's disputed articles section. Janus303 (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

IMAX

The article states that the IMAX was for ten years the only IMAX in "the tri-state area." Which three states are included? Plazak (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Denver Museum of Natural History?

I found a citation and added a mention of the original name of the museum, the "Colorado Museum of Natural History". However, it also spent some time as the "Denver Museum of Natural History", yet I've been unable to find a good reference for that name and/or when the change was made; I found a few passing mentions on rockymountainnews.com but nothing on denverpost.com. Any suggestions? Sw2k7 (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Newly published history of the museum

The DMNS just published a history of their museum -- it's also available for free download from http://www.dmns.org/science/museum-publications/ as Denver Museum of Nature & Science Annals 4. -- Gaurav (talk) 07:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Denver Museum of Nature and Science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130117023703/http://aam-us.org/docs/accreditation/list-of-accredited-museums.pdf?sfvrsn=4 to http://www.aam-us.org/docs/accreditation/list-of-accredited-museums.pdf?sfvrsn=4

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)