Talk:Creation Museum/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Ken Ham vs Bill Nye Debate

The museum has been in the news quite a bit lately due to tonight's debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye. Something should be added to the article about this, but I'm almost thinking it might be notable enough to have its own section rather than being tacked on to the "in the media" section. Oldiesmann (talk) 03:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it should be well-covered on this page (but I don't think that there is, yet, sufficient enduring coverage to justify a separate page). --Tryptofish (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

edit summaries

"religious dogma is utter bullshit" is one of the more unhelpful edit summaries one could make on what is, frankly, a matter of "religion" and thus subject to Wikipedia policies and guidelines thereon. The article is less than favourable to the museum, and making a case with a sledgehammer is violative of WP:NPOV and other policies. Collect (talk) 12:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

No but pushing fringe theories. NPOV means not what you claim it means. It means what is supported by the vast amount of literature, and that would religious dogma on creationism is utter bullshit. I'm sure there's a less provocative sounding way to say, but I don't actually care. You can look it up while complaining somewhere, I'm sure. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 08:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

"Date night" incident

As mentioned in the neverending discussion above, I would like to discuss some other issues with this article. I made one previous, ill-fated attempt to discuss several of these issues in a single thread, which didn't resolve much, so I'm going to try discussing them one by one this time, starting with the "date night" incident. I think this paragraph should be removed from the article. I base this judgment on the inclusion criteria found in WP:EVENT. Although that guideline is primarily about inclusion of articles, I think it serves as a helpful guideline for the inclusion of an event within an article. There are five inclusion criteria; I believe this event fails at least three of them.

• Lasting effects: An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable.: I see no evidence of any lasting effects of this event, other than maybe a blogger and his buddies being out $71 that they apparently solicited from their readership to begin with. No lawsuits were filed, no policies were changed, and there's no evidence that the museum discriminates against homosexual visitors, even though that was the narrative surrounding the event. If refusing entry to homosexual couples was a museum policy, do we really think they only found one time to enforce it over the course of 7 years and over 2 million visitors, and that time just happened to be the one time a blogger had planned a set-up? Or, as the museum claims, was this about preventing a premeditated disruption to a museum event, not about homosexuality at all? I think the latter is far more likely. Given this, I believe the event had no significant lasting effects.
• Geographical scope: Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group.: The only argument here could be that the event had an effect on a widespread societal group (i.e. homosexual individuals). I'm not sure what the significant impact would be exactly. The museum's teachings on homosexuality are public and clear. I fail to see how a homosexual individual would be more impacted by this one event beyond how they are affected by those public teachings generally. As noted above, it seems unlikely that homosexual individuals are routinely denied admission to the museum.
• Depth of coverage: An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable. The event probably meets this criterion. Most accounts I saw seemed to cover essentially the same facts in as much depth as possible for a single event.
• Duration of coverage: Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle.: To me, this is the most compelling reason to remove the event. A Google search of the terms "creation museum" "date night" sonka – keywords I think we would all agree would show up in any significant hits about this event – limited to hits published after March 1, 2011 (i.e. less than three weeks after the event took place) returns a whopping 14 results consisting, as nearly as I can tell, of either passing references to the event with no new information and/or unrelated hits. I can't see any argument that this event meets the "duration of coverage" criterion.
• Diversity of sources: Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted. I haven't done an in-depth source review, but I don't see any real argument that the event wouldn't meet this criterion, since several major news outlets picked up the story.

There you have it. Two out of five criteria, at best. Basically, this was a stunt cooked up by a blogger to generate a short, intense media spike, and that's pretty much what happened. Nothing particularly encyclopedic about that from where I (and apparently Wikipedia's guidelines) stand. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The paragraph in question is the last paragraph of the "Controversy and criticism" section. I feel the need to underline the fact that WP:EVENT is about (not just primarily about) having an entire page about an event, not about describing an event as a short paragraph within a page about a larger topic. As I see it, the most applicable policy is WP:DUE. If this were a museum that had existed for hundreds of years, then I'd say an event like this one would not merit a mention at all. There's a narrative around the perception that fundamentalists (and "Biblical marriage", the context of the event) discriminate against LGBT people, and that in this case the Museum stated that they do not do so. It seems to me that the incident is worth about a sentence or two, and I'm not sure whether it's in the right section, or should be in "In the media", given that it was, as you said, a sort of stunt. I agree with you part way, in that we currently provide more detail than is encyclopedic – who really cares about the $71, for instance? Let me suggest this: delete the second and fourth sentences, keeping just the first and third sentences (and the existing sources). Does that seem reasonable? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, that makes it worse by not stating that the bloggers publicly acknowledged their intent to cause a spectacle. According to the museum, that's precisely why security was on the lookout in the first place and why the bloggers were denied entrance. I don't see how WP:DUE is really in play here, at least no more than WP:EVENT would be. Even if we accept the "narrative" of LGBT discrimination by fundamentalists, what lasting impact or contribution did this event have on that narrative? None, as far as I can tell. What lasting effect did it have on the museum? None. This was a flash in the pan, no matter what angle you consider it from.

You hold that, if the museum had a longer history, this wouldn't merit a mention. I find that curious. How much history would a museum have to have before attempting to defuse an admitted publicity stunt would no longer merit inclusion? How would one arrive at that standard? Is the logic here that because the museum is relatively new, there isn't yet enough other interesting stuff to say about it, so we should include this as filler to make the article longer? Once more interesting stuff happens, it will no longer be inclusion-worthy? I prefer to consider inclusion of this event on its own merits (or lack thereof), not relative to other stuff that could be said, now or in the future, about the museum. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I actually said the narrative was of the perception of such discrimination, but I guess your "publicity stunt" is my "protest against discrimination". It's significant that the Museum would choose to organize an event around "Biblical marriage". That's not even the creation of the earth and life on earth, but a position concerning a social issue that is very salient within the time period of the Museum's existence. If that's the way you feel about shortening it the way I first suggested, I'm going to oppose deleting it completely. How about just deleting the last sentence? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Collect just made some edits to the paragraph that I think improve it a lot. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Collect's edits may address other policy issues with the passage, but it doesn't change my objection to including this content. I don't see why it is significant that the museum is taking a position on marriage. It's fairly common among fundamentalist Christians – and AiG is very clear that they promote fundamentalist Christian ideas, not just YEC – that the creation of Adam and Eve was God's way of condoning male-female marriage to the exclusion of all other arrangements. The CM's promotion of this position should be neither particularly surprising nor regarded as diverging greatly from their promotion of creationism. If taking a position on marriage is the issue, however, I recommend including reference to it in the Beliefs section and eliminating reference to this incident with the bloggers. I suspect it will be relatively easy to find a citation describing AiG/CM's position on marriage. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 23:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I guess the two of us really do disagree about this issue. I think the passage is improved by more than just the rather minor issue of removing the blogger's name based upon WP:BLP1E; it also helps to decrease the emphasis (WP:DUE) on who the blogger was and to remove the trivial point about the ticket cost that was not refunded. The information that we give the reader does include the belief concerning marriage, but the issue is not that it diverges from creationism, but that the Museum not only promotes creationism but also promotes other fundamentalist positions not directly related to creationism. I agree with you that it isn't surprising, but it paints a fuller picture that this isn't only a Museum about Creation, but also about other fundamentalist values. It is also significant that this was not about an exhibit, but about an event – an event that was organized to promote this view of marriage. (We cover exhibits and displays. If there are also a lot of events like "date night", maybe we should have a section about such events, and I'd be fine with moving this information there, maybe in shorter form because of the context.) It is furthermore significant that the event attracted protest, after a fashion. I realize and accept that editors may regard the blogger's actions as fundraising and disruption, and I do not dispute that those things were part of it, but there was also an aspect of secular people making fun of the Museum's values, and that is a sort of protest, whether one agrees with the stand or not. I think that the way that we cover it is fair, particularly because we now, after the recent edits, close with the Museum's response (from Mark Looy), so we (sort of) give the Museum the "last word". But this material is about more than one of the Museum's beliefs. It's about the way that those beliefs intersect with the larger society. I hate to suggest this at this point in time, but if you feel as strongly as I do, we may need another RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I started to go straight to the RfC route with this, but I ultimately decided to start with another informal discussion. I think RfC is going to be the way to go though. I can definitely see expanding on the museum's extra-creationist (is that a word?) beliefs in the Beliefs section, and I would agree that some verbiage about the events held there could be a useful addition if there is enough reliably sourced information out there about it. Having done some significant research to improve the article already, I'm not sure there will be, but if we look again with the specific goal of creating such a section, we might dig up enough for a paragraph or two.

I still don't see that this one event is significant enough to merit mention, though. Protests written by scientists and museum professionals? Included. Protest with many attendees from many backgrounds at the museum's opening, complete with airplane banner? Included. Protests documented in movies and documentaries? Included. Protest orchastrated by a publicly antagonistic blogger and his three friends thrown out for previously announcing their intent to be disruptive? One of these things is not like the others in terms of scope, participation, and/or signficance. I happen to think WP:EVENT lays out some pretty good criteria for the inclusion of events in articles, even if that wasn't specifically what it was designed for. I'll wait and see if anyone else chimes in, but if not, yes, I think this is worth taking to an RfC. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Let me float one alternative that I mentioned only in passing above. How about a section of the page about "events" or something like that, assuming that the "date night" event was typical of other events organized by and held at the Museum? There could be a short section describing those events, just as we describe exhibitions and displays. If we have that, then I'd be satisfied with just having a brief sentence such as "Events such as "date night" have also attracted disruptions by critics of the Museum", cited to the source about the blogger disruption. That would work for me, because we would be providing context about the events in question, and I would not see any need for further exposition about the blogger and his stunt/protest. Would that work for you? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

An events section could be advantageous; presently, there's not even a mention of the highly-publicized Bill Nye–Ken Ham debate (which had "lasting effects" in terms of spurring funding for the Ark Encounter, btw) because there isn't really a good place for it. I'm open to giving that a try, but as usual, I suspect it will come down to execution. What sources do you intend to search to find material? No sense in us looking in the same places. I have access to Newsbank (including The Kentucky Post and the Lexington Herald-Leader, but unfortunately not The Courier Journal) through a local library. I also have access to Highbeam, Questia, and recently, JSTOR through The Wikipedia Library. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Good! I think that approach is very much worth pursuing, as it will potentially improve the page a lot more than an RfC about either keeping or deleting one paragraph could do. You are way ahead of me about sources, so I don't have a good answer to your question. Perhaps the way to start is to look at the Museum website, AiG website, and the related blogs, to find out what kinds of events there have been, and then, after that, look for independent sourcing about whatever is turned up by that. But I would say WP:There is no deadline, so I'm not too worried about finding all possible material right away. We have readily available sourcing for the Nye debate and its significance, so that can start out as the main content of the section. We have some sourcing about "date night" so that can have a shorter amount of material, and then further material can be added as time goes along. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I just did a very preliminary look, and they seem to have regularly scheduled "Stargazers Night"s, that get a good number of search engine hits. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's a link to a list of their Special Programs, of which there are a great many: [1]. By the way, in searching around, I'm seeing a lot of secondary source commentary about the "date night" incident, in terms of LGBT rights, that the various versions on our page have given short shrift to – just saying. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

IMHO, the stated fundraising purpose of the confrontation is key to relevance -- else this incident is not of any weight for the museum at all. Without stating that a confrontation was sought, there is nothing here to use. Collect (talk) 11:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I see that you reverted me on that, and that's fine with me. But you also reverted the language about sexual orientation, and I changed it back, simply because it is better to describe a person by what they are, rather than by what they are not. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• An adverse side-effect of this discussion is that it just prompted me to look more critically at the source material – and I'm about to rewrite the existing paragraph per WP:NPOV. First of all, the sourcing at this time consists of a dead link, a post from the Museum that is a reliable source for the Museum's position, but not for the events overall, and an NBC News story, that does not attribute the intention to "disrupt" to the blogger, but to the Museum's interpretation of something that the blogger's companion's friend had posted some time earlier. The source material contains nothing about the blog stating an intent to "disrupt". All of the references to disruption and the intention to disrupt are attributed to Museum spokespeople. There is also nothing in the source indicating that any fundraising actually took place. I'm going to revise it, citing the NBC source and a USA Today source, and write it according to what the sources actually say. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• I've started a new page section about "Programs", and moved the paragraph there. I think it's generally better to move content into sections other than a criticism section. I also started some content in that section about the Nye debate and other events and programs, and I'd be happy to see other editors expand on that, because I think there is room for expansion there. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Acdixon for fixing what I wrote about the Ark Encounter. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

An easy one... I hope

I propose deleting the sentence "Krauss said that the facility is 'as much a disservice to religion as it is to science'." The reference is to physicist Lawrence Krauss, who is an atheist. While Krauss can be cited regarding the scientific aspects of the museum, I don't think he's a qualified source with regard to its "disservice to religion", since he proclaims none himself. We have several other folks who are qualified to comment on the religious aspects of the museum already in the article.

When I brought this up in my previous, ill-advised mega-thread, no one defended the inclusion of this quote or argued with my reasoning for proposing its removal. However, because the discussion quickly became fragmented (my fault), I never got a clear go-ahead to remove it. I wanted to WP:BOLD-ly remove it now, but I thought I'd go ahead and make sure I won't upset anyone's apple cart. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. Your assumption that Kauss is not "a qualified source with regard to its "disservice to religion", since he proclaims none himself" is incorrect. That would be classic special pleading. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you then arguing that Krauss is an expert in religious matters, and if so, upon what basis? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, he certainly is. He has been involved in religious debates with noted apologists, and is a noted critic of religion in general, he's made films about religion. And I completely agree with Dominus Vobisdu, you are engaging in special pleading. You don't have to be religious to comment on religion. That's classic special pleading.GliderMaven (talk) 02:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Acdixon, now it's my turn to say "ack". First, I find it helpful to know where on the page we are looking, so this sentence is in Creation Museum#Opening, end of paragraph 5. I do not, obviously, consider Krauss a theologian, but then Eugenie Scott, who is quoted in the same paragraph, is not an expert on Disneyland, either. If we set the bar for quotable commentary so high that Krauss cannot be quoted on what is really a matter of atheism, then I want to be able to start raising issues about Jim Bob Duggar. The next paragraph after the Krauss one quotes a paleontologist about something very similar.

But, as with most NPOV issues, there is a middle ground. If there is a person with expertise in theology who can be quoted about the CM being something like a disservice to religion, and there very well might be, I'd support using that quote in place of the quote disputed here. In other words, there is a big difference between deleting some content, versus replacing it with better content. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Not only are there people with expertise in theology who can be quoted about the religious aspects of the CM, the entire fourth paragraph in the Beliefs section is nothing but that! There's also the bit from Professor Lisa Park, who also happens to be an elder in the Presbyterian Church, further down in the Opening section; even she is more qualified to assess the religious aspects of the museum than Krauss. There is no need to replace Krauss' commentary with anything. We already have abundant commentary from more qualified individuals. We should just let that stand and remove Krauss viz a viz theology.

Also, I shouldn't have said his atheism is de facto disqualification for commenting on religious merit; there are probably some atheists who have extensively studied religion who might be able to be cited as experts. So far, I've seen no evidence that Krauss is such an individual. After all, we cite him as Lawrence Krauss the physicist, not Lawrence Krauss the theologian. And this is a quote about theology and religion, not "a matter of atheism".

Finally, I'm disappointed to see you raise the Eugenie Scott thing here, if it was meant to be raised as a legitimate counterpoint. The context is quite clearly different. She isn't purporting to seriously assess either Disneyland or, really, creationism, with that quote, and I think you know that, because your reasoning skills are demonstrably better than that. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Acdixon. We have plenty of religious commenters that we can quote about whether or not the museum is a disservice to religion. But I don't think even Krauss would claim he is one of those. So it seems he is being quoted outside of his expertise. We have enough commenters that we don't need to do that. --GRuban (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

About Disneyland, yes I was being partly facetious, and a trout to me for forgetting how humor is tricky on-Wiki (hmm, that rhymes). But the larger point is that it is being overly picky to disqualify Krauss from being able to say that something makes religion look bad. He isn't offering an expert opinion about any of the finer points of religion. Much as Stephen Jay Gould is not disqualified as an expert on Non-overlapping magisteria just because he was primarily a scientist. I raised the issue of paleontologist Lisa Park being quoted in the next paragraph about "even worse theology". Her expertise is paleontology, and the fact mentioned here, that she also happens to be a church elder, does nothing to make her more an expert than Krauss, unless one sets a criterion that Christians are more eligible to be quoted on this page than atheists.

(inserted)

Well, again, the intent is not to disqualify him (or Gill, to reference the previous conversation) because he "makes religion look bad". Actually, I rather think his intent was to make religion look good relative to YEC and the CM. The point is that we are quoting someone who, as far as I can tell, is willfully ignorant (where "ignorant" is related to "ignore") of a topic (religion) making comments relative to the topic of ignorance. Krauss is obviously an educated man, but he is educated in physics. The fact that he is an atheist seems to indicate to me that he deemed the topic of religion unworthy of study. Nothing wrong with that; I just don't see the need to quote him when we have plenty of folks who have deemed it worthy of study that we could and do quote. Park is one such individual. Although her primary focus is paleontology, she has at least devoted enough study to religion to be deemed worthy of a title within her church and/or denomination. If Krauss has given himself to such study, no one has yet pointed it out. That is why I think Park is more qualified to comment than Krauss, not because she is a Christian. I'm really having trouble understanding why this distinction is giving people heartburn. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the main thing here is that I agree with what you said below, so I'm pretty sure we will have something to work with productively. Thanks. That makes my reply to what you said above more academic than practical, but I'll say it anyway for what it's worth. I don't think you or I can actually know what Krauss has studied, unless we have a source somewhere where he says it. There are atheists who have studied religion in great detail, and some atheists have come to it after having been raised in a religion. (I'm not a reliable source, but even though my own academic degrees are in biochemistry, I've studied a lot of other things in great detail.) Anyway, no heartburn with me, and I hope not with you either. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary Krauss is a noted expert on both the history of the universe, as well as being a noted religious critic, and is someone who has publicly debated the leading apologists for religion. The idea that he hasn't studied religion is simply false. Who would be better than him for reviewing (what is in most people's and his highly educated opinion) a bunch of religious-based made up mumbo jumbo such as is presented in the 'creation museum'? He is actually an acknowledged, published, award winning expert scientist on the history of the universe.GliderMaven (talk) 02:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say we shouldn't quote him on the intellectual merit of the museum viz a viz the origins of the universe. We can and do already do that in this article. I said we shouldn't quote him on the religious value of the museum. We already have adherents of various religions that do that. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The fact that he is an atheist seems to indicate to me that he deemed the topic of religion unworthy of study.

That is not a logically defensible statement. Many atheists are very interested in and very knowledgeable about religion. Often more so than the overwhelming majority of the adherents of the religion itself. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

You'll notice that I corrected myself on this already in the main, and I stand corrected regarding Krauss specifically now. No one had yet made any mention of Krauss' study of religion. I still think, however, that quoting from an "antitheist" (according to his article) regarding the CM's value to religion is less effective than quoting adherents of religion. Krauss' opposition to and negative view of anything religious appears to be expected; criticism from within the religious community would perhaps be less so, and thus more worthy of note. An a fortiori argument (though not a perfect one) might go, "If the religious think it is a disservice to religion, then the atheists can be expected to also." Just my opinion. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

But you point out something else that looks to me to be a good opportunity for a compromise. You are absolutely right that we cover similar commentary in "Beliefs" as in "Opening". Aside from actual protestation that directly accompanied the opening of the museum, broader discussion about religious implications fit much better in the "Beliefs" section. So how about moving all, or almost all, of the opinions out of "Opening", and into "Beliefs", and then looking for where we can reduce redundancy there? I'd look much more favorably on deleting what Krauss said if it were part of a lengthier section where such comments were already plentiful. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the final two paragraphs of the "Opening" section don't logically belong there to begin with, and reduction in redundancy is a goal I've had from the start. I've been looking at the article in toto in that regard, but if grouping the content helps highlight (with the intent of eliminating) the redundancy, then be my guest. I'd probably leave Kagan and Adams in the Opening section, since those comments were made at the rally, but those last two paragraphs are probably portable. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I just moved these paragraphs per the discussion here. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for moving that material. I've just looked at the now-revised "Beliefs" section, and I'm becoming a little more receptive to deleting the comment in question, as part of a further reorganization of the section – but not on the basis of Krauss not being qualified to offer the opinion, just on the basis that I'm beginning to think that it will end up being redundant. I want to look at this a bit longer, but I think what needs to happen now is a reorganization within the "Beliefs" section, so that related material is kept together, instead of jumping back and forth between topics. I'd like the first couple of paragraphs to focus only on the CM's beliefs, without criticism. Then, I'd like to see the criticism follow, organized so that there is pretty much one topic of criticism per paragraph. (Currently, it's more like each paragraph corresponds to when an editor added some content, with multiple related criticisms repeated in different paragraphs.) I think that, once the material is organized in the way I suggest, it will flow much better than it does now, and it will also become easier to assess what, if anything, ought to be cut. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

This sounds like a good plan, although I am a bit concerned that it will result in several short choppy paragraphs. But that's "tomorrow's" problem. Right now, let's try it and see what we end up with. I may be worried for nothing. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Good. I'm going to make a pass at it, hopefully without deleting anything yet, and then we can take stock of where we are at. A question: should we move any other criticisms, elsewhere on the page, to "Beliefs" as well? I just looked quickly over the entire page, and it seems to me that the various other criticisms pertain to the page sections in which they are now. But if there are criticisms that I've overlooked, that really go to criticism of the beliefs of the CM without also pertaining to exhibits or events that are the subjects of other page sections, we might want to move those as well. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, I reorganized it, without removing any content, just moving it around and making copyedits to make things fit. In some ways, it ended up being more about consolidating the beliefs, rather than the criticisms. I then made a bold edit, changing how we reference Krauss, to better reflect what he said in terms of his expertise, per the source. I'm interested in what editors think now. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

As a whole, I think the reorganization is a good one. The rewritten bit about Krauss, though, only emphasizes why he thinks the museum is a disservice to science. It does not – and based on my reading of the cited source, cannot – elaborate on why he thinks it is a disservice to religion. I still maintain that we don't lose anything by dropping this bit. There is plenty of commentary within this section on why others think the CM is a disservice to religion. Also, including it here doesn't seem to fit with the purpose of the reorganization, which was to create themed paragraphs. There are two paragraphs about what the CM does believe, followed by one paragraph about what it does not believe, then a transition paragraph to introduce OEC and TE, then a paragraph of religion objections, followed by a paragraph of scientific objections. Injecting Krauss' religious objections in the scientific objections paragraph breaks the pattern, doesn't it? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you. I intentionally did not delete anything when I did the reorganization, but I pretty much came to the same conclusion as you. I do think that what is emerging as the best solution is to replace the original Krauss quote with a better one, rather than deleting the sentence entirely. I think that we can still keep the "science" part of what he said, and I'll make that edit now. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

accreditation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Alas -- the costs of getting accredited are substantial (only $250 fee annually plus all costs of transportation, housing, feeding of staff making the visit)[2]. Until 1 Jan 2014, there was also an "application fee". In 2013, zero institutions were "denied". [3]. The association accredits 779 institutions (covering 1021 sites since some have multiple sites). There are over 32,000 museums in the US, meaning about 3% are accredited, and about 97% could have "not accredited" added to their Wikipedia articles where they exist. Iffy at best. Collect (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Should this article state specifically that the museum is "is not accredited by the American Alliance of Museums, and some scientists and museum professionals have argued that it does not fit the formal definition of a museum"? 12:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Note that only about 3% of US museums are "accredited" by the association (779 out of over 32,000). Thus about 97% of US museums could have this claim placed in their articles where such exist. The apparent source for the second half of the claim is Kelly, Casey Ryan; Hoerl, Kristen E (Winter 2012). "Genesis in Hyperreality: Legitimizing Disingenuous Controversy at the Creation Museum". Argumentation and Advocacy 48 (3): 123–141. which is possibly not a reliable source for such a broad claim. In fact, it is possible that the title of that source indicates a fairly specific point of view from the two authors, which may make the claim improper in the lead of this article. I am far from a "young earth creationist" here, but WP:NPOV is not negotiable, and edit summaries such as Let's make it clear that this religious dogma is utter bullshit and is not supported by any educated scientist, unless you want to cherry pick one or two engineers somewhere do not appear to indicate a position consistent with that policy. IMHO, religion is like taste ("de gustibus") - disputations thereon are rarely beneficial to readers or to Wikipedia. The article already is a tad less than favourable to the museum, but sledgehammer claims do not help much at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• As one who did a good bit of work on this article in the not-too-distant past, I would say I encountered several instances of specific scientists disputing that the Creation Museum is actually a museum, enough that I think this bit should probably stay. I cited the sentence to only one source to avoid junking up the article with a bunch of individual references. (How many specific instances would we need to cite in order to justify leaving it, bearing in mind that we'd need that many footnotes after the sentence?) As for the accreditation issue, I'm neutral on that. I don't know enough about it to gauge how big a deal it is, but I do insist that if it remains, the fact that the museum lacks an accessioned collection remain as well, since this was the only reason we could cite to a reliable source about the museum's lack of accreditation. We should not imply that it lacks accreditation because it "is not a real museum" or because the costs of accreditation are too high unless those specific reasons are cited in reliable sources. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• I recommend adding a couple of additional sources to the statement. --GRuban (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

A few possible sources for scientists questioning the CM's status as a museum:

• Daniel Phelps, on behalf of the National Center for Science Education, consistently refers to it as the Anti-Museum.
• PZ Meyers calls it "Ken Ham's fabulous fake museum" and alludes to others calling it "The Fred and Wilma Flintstone Museum".
• No link here because it's behind a paywall, but in a March 26, 2007, article for the Lexington Herald-Leader, Andy Mead says: "But mainstream scientists, who have dubbed it The Fred and Wilma Flintstone Museum , say the museum's message is just plain wrong." I accessed the source via Newsbank.

I'll let this discussion shake out a bit before attempting to work any of these in, if the consensus is for more cited sources. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, we could use more sources for these challenges to it's being a real museum. I'd support rewording the accreditation statement but not necessarily leaving it out - if there are useful quotes we can use that might be ok. The wording of this RfC is not optimal as it's actually including two issues, not just one. Dougweller (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that the claim in the lead is a single sentence - having an RfC for each half of a sentence seemed likely to be worse. I still doubt the "unaccredited" bit has any specific value here unfortunately, and still doubt that the material from the one source is important enough to be in the lead as well as in the body of the article -- the lead already is pretty heavily negative. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

BTW, the "accessioned collection" argument seems to be from the single source - I can not find any other basis for it - the place has a planetarium and I suspect that is sufficient in most cases for a museum elsewise. Madame Tussaud's, for example, has no "accessioned collection" that I can find. Collect (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Lack of an accessioned collection doesn't mean it isn't a museum. It means it can't be an accredited museum. There was some speculation about why the CM wasn't accredited, including "it's not a real museum", "it's too expensive", "it never applied", and "it was applied and denied", but the only fact found in reliable sources is that it would not be eligible for accreditation because it has no accessioned collection. I insist that this stay if the bit about accreditation stays to prevent readers from drawing any non-documented conclusions about why the museum isn't accredited. Lack of an accessioned collection is all we know for sure about that so far. I should have been clearer about that reasoning. Sorry. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The first and strongest reason is apparently the group never has asked to be accredited - which is all that applies to 97% of all US museums. Tidbit for body of article most likely - not strong enough for the lead IMO especially since it is lead overkill. This group has a regular planetarium - which, frankly, is just as important as the "Death Mask of Napoleon" (one of several). AFAICT, the CM has fossil specimens [4] which certainly appears to be an "accessioned" item as well as an insect collection [5] etc. YMMV. Collect (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Where is it "apparent" that the group never asked to be accredited? I ask that in all sincerity, because I looked for a source stating definitively that they had or had not applied for accreditation. I would have considered such a statement preferable to the present arrangement. If we have a source stating that they have not applied, I'd be fine with dropping the accessioned bit. Both the allosaurus and insect exhibit were added to the musuem after the cited source was written, so it may no longer be a valid observation, but right now, it's all we have. I'd love to change that if you have a better source.

I actually tend to agree with you about it not meriting a place in the lead. This was a hot button issue on the talk page when I was working on the article last, so that may have made it seem more important that it actually was. No problem from my perspective with demoting it from the lead. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

You mean other than the fact the head of the groups specifically stated it never applied to be accredited? Nor does it appear on any list of rejections at all from the accreditation group. Personally I find the whole debate about accreditation to be a sideshow at best when 97% of all US museums (and an even larger percentage of international museums) are not accredited by anyone at all. Collect (talk) 01:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

If you are talking about Ken Ham's blog post about accreditation, our discussion here would be vastly easier if he actually had said that they never applied. However, although he talks about the accreditation criteria, and states that the Museum satisfies those criteria, he never actually discusses anything about having applied or having not applied. And I haven't seen any sources that list institutions that applied and were turned down. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

a skeleton of one of the giants that lived in those days... or at least a human that drowned in the biblical Deluge.

• Agree Considering that the Creation Museum purports to be a museum, we need to explain how that claim is received. I wonder though if the phrasing is providing parity between the claims of the CM and mainstream scientists. If it were a museum one would expect to see the Tree of Knowledge, the clothes that Adam and Eve made after they ate the forbidden fruit, personal possessions of Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel and Seth, a skeleton of one of the giants that lived in those days, etc. Madame Tussaud's btw is a real museum that has valuable works of art and death masks. TFD (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

In fairness, they've got the valuable skeleton of a non-avian 'vegetarian' dinosaur, they're just as much a museum as Disneyland. Still an issue, as shown by reliable sources. . dave souza, talk 13:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I concur. If it is criticized, then the article should objectively reflect this criticism. There should be as many cites as possible so that the article maintains its objectivity.Familygardner (talk) 00:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• I was here a year ago, for the discussion at Talk:Creation Museum/Archive 3#Accreditation: Does the lack of accreditation warrant mention in the Article?. It seems to me that the only thing that has changed in the interim is that one editor made some edits with the word "bullshit" in the edit summary, and another editor was angered by objected to that edit summary. I'm fine with adding more sources, of course. But I see no reason to leave out the content about lack of accreditation. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Looking more closely at the page, there is a brief mention of accreditation in the lead (which seems to be the primary concern of this RfC), and more detailed information in the section Creation Museum#Displays and exhibits (second paragraph), where the information about "accessioned" is located. In my opinion, the mention in the lead is not undue, because it summarizes something that gets amplified upon in the later text, and because it serves as a succinct specific about the criticism of the Museum. Simply deleting it from the lead would seem to me to alter the POV balance of the lead. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Would you then support adding "unaccredited" to other museum articles on Wikipedia? I think we would have several hundred in short order in that category. I am not "angered" by hatred of religion - one of my sysops and close online friends was Robin Murray-O'Hair. I simply suggest the form of such anger may indicate a problem with restraining one's own POV. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF, but I would only add it when there is source material discussing accreditation of the museum that is the page subject. In this case, Ken Ham has written about accreditation in his own blog, and other sources have commented about accreditation specifically in the context of creation museums, so I think that it's applicable. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

We should mention it in this article because sources think that is important. TFD (talk) 00:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

And as Tryptofish says, if it's also an issue for any other museum we'd probably mention it in their article. Dougweller (talk) 08:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• I don't have a problem with the lack of accreditation being mentioned in the article, so long as it is a topic of interest in the sources ("x says that they are not accredited, y says they don't have to be") and that we also cover the response. If it's true that most museums aren't accredited (which sounds to me like a pretty compelling argument for accreditation not being a major thing in museums - though it could be that there are just 20 podunk "museums" that are some person's collection of Arsenio Hall memorabilia or something for every one thing that I would think of as a "museum"), then that is probably a standard response to the criticism that the museum isn't accredited, and there should be a source for that. Saying, "NCSE says it isn't accredited but Hamm says that he meets the definition but 97% of all museums aren't accredited anyway." doesn't really seem to be a bad way to go there. Am I fundamentally missing something? Is "museums aren't usually accredited" a fringe view for some reason? 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 14:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
• I would also like to add that it seems slightly inappropriate that the "Accreditation" field is explicitly filled in with "none" on the Infobox Museum. I visited the first 50 pages into which {{Infobox museum}} is transcluded and found that not one of them mentioned their accreditation status. This doesn't seem to be a standard item in the museum infobox, so its explicit inclusion there seems kinda misleading. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 14:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point, about the infobox. I'd be fine with deleting it from there. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion of these sentences. I think they add unnecessary controversy.

The accreditation issue is, I think, being conflated with college accreditation. In my view, museum accreditation primarily assures taxpayers and private donors that their money is being spent responsibly. The Creation Museum doesn't receive public funds, and for its donors, AiG's statement of faith is more important than any secular accreditation could be. (That's true of any museum operated by a faith group.)

If it's not a museum, what is it? Roches (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I guess my answer to your question at the end is that it is whatever the reliable source material says it is. I obviously cannot speak for other editors, but I fully appreciate the difference between museum and college accreditation. And I don't follow your reasoning about "unnecessary controversy": the subject matter of the page is controversial in the real world (by which I mean outside of Wikipedia), and our coverage should reflect whatever controversy exists in sources, but without taking sides in it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't want to make an overly long comment, and I can't respond briefly to that. I don't agree with AiG. At all. When I mentioned conflation of museum accreditation with college accreditation, I was trying to provide a mechanism for why someone, not necessarily you, might think accreditation is important for a museum. It's irrelevant to me whether a museum is accredited, and it's irrelevant to me whether it meets an arbitrary "formal definition of a museum." I'm a scientist and I think it's a museum. It's not a natural history museum, it's not a science museum, but it's a collection of objects and exhibits. What matters to me is that they misrepresent scientific evidence in order to say that their brand of young-earth creationism is an inextricable part of Christianity. That's covered in the introduction, and it should be. Accreditation is discussed in the main body of the article, as it should be. Roches (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I think there's more to being a museum than being a collection of exhibits. An art gallery is a collection of exhibits, but it's not a museum. Disneyland is or has a collection of exhibits, but it's not a museum. To be a true museum there has to be authenticity; and it's not enough for the people that own it to claim it. It's like a scientific paper; if you publish a paper and claim it's scientific; is it? That's not ultimately for you to say.

Likewise is a creation museum authentic? I would have no problem if somebody created a museum of creationism. But they've not done that, they've created a 'museum' for creationism. That's a subtle, but very, very important difference. One is a real museum with artefacts put in their proper perspective. The other is Agitprop, they've taken real items and put them in the wrong context, or made up objects from whole cloth, for political purposes. So it's not in that sense a proper museum at all.GliderMaven (talk) 01:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Art museums are an extremely major category of museum - and are not just "galleries." The Hermitage and Louvre are "art galleries" in one sense, but they are damn well museums as well. Any place exhibiting things of interest to someone can certainly be a museum -- including the Zippo Museum and slews of others. The Franklin Institute has a great many demonstration exhibits - made for the purpose of demonstrating science but not specifically all of historical value or "accessioned" value. As for deriding Disney - EPCOT has on exhibit one of the few pieces of moon rock in the US on public display. It has also had such artifacts as Twain's typewriter, Will Rogers' rope and a host of other museum exhibit items. Sorry -- "museum" is a very broad term indeed. Collect (talk) 01:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Art galleries are museums because they house collections of value. But the "Creation museum" contains replicas of what would be a valuable collection. And you could have a Disney museum. It would house original drawings and films, and personal items owned by Disney, not just people walking around in Mickey Mouse costumes. And there are shoe museums, kitsch museums, Elvis museums, etc., that could not possibly be accredited but are museums nonetheless. TFD (talk) 01:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

IOW you deem a major insect collection to be of nil value, is what that argument boils down to, and the Allosaur skeleton is of nil value? Sorry -- but while one may well find the premise of a museum laughable or wrong, that does not make it any less a museum. That logic would mean that a "museum of wrong thought" in any place or time would be a "not museum." Collect (talk) 11:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying that Disneyland couldn't have a museum in it, only that Disneyland is not a museum. There's also a subtle difference between an 'art gallery' that simply sells art, and an art museum like the Louvre. The point isn't even whether the creator had some sort of thought crime when they created it, it's whether everyone else thinks it's actually a museum. I mean, I can look at the desk in front of me, and claim that the mugs and pens and paper on my desk constitute a museum. Is it actually a museum? I could go through all the forms, charge admission, keep an accessioned list of exhibits. Does that mean my desk is actually a museum, just because I label it so?

That's pretty much the situation with the creation museum.GliderMaven (talk) 13:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

And if you had a legal registered name for your desk as a museum, and publically offered it as a museum, that would be sufficient. I doubt you have done that <g>. "Art galleries" which use the name "museum" are museums. "Elvis museums" are museums. The Zippo lighter museum is a museum. The Franklin Institute, not known for an "Accessioned collection" is a museum. Once we define museums on the basis of "wrong thought" or "right thought" we are opening a ginormous can of worms. By not making such a judgment, perhaps someone will actually accept "wrong thought" but that is a small price to pay for the right to have "wrong thought." Collect (talk) 17:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I can easily do all that, it still doesn't make it a museum.GliderMaven (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Who is this "we", Tonto? If reliable mainstream sources of good quality make an issue of this point, then it's reasonable to include it as part of how this creationist enterprise has been received. . . dave souza, talk 17:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

We already include a fair amount of criticism -- the issue at this point is whether we should use a sledgehammer to tell readers this is a "wrong thought" museum. I tend to believe we present facts and leave the opinions to readers as much as possible. The comments above were with regard to claims as to "what is not a museum" and on that I am fairly sure most would agree that "wrong thought" is not a basis for making judgments in Wikipedia's voice. Cheers, Kimosabe. Collect (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not about wrong thought it's about whether the people running the museum are accurately presenting the physical facts in context; but they aren't; a museum isn't supposed to systematically misrepresent its artefacts.GliderMaven (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The scientific literature for the most part calls the Creation Museum a museum and goes on to criticize its content and presentation. There are only a few papers that argue that it is not a museum. The Jennings paper that's cited in this article is from the journal Exhibitionist, published by the AAM and subject to editorial review but not peer review. It was written shortly after the museum was opened, and it is stated in that paper that it is a response to an article touting the Creation Museum as a new kind of museum that would push the envelope as to what museums are and do. So, Jennings responds by saying that it's not a new kind of museum and it may not be a museum at all. I think this is before they acquired the Allosaurus and before they had a bug exhibit, and the author does not specifically mention having intimate familiarity with the museum's contents.

The First Amendment allows anybody to call anything a museum and it allows them to interpret their collection according to religious beliefs, although a for-profit museum cannot receive grants or tax exemptions. (See the legal definition here.)

Museums have no requirement to interpret their collections "accurately." They may have trouble with accreditation or grants, but they still are allowed to call themselves museums.

The basic error that makes creation science unscientific is that it begins with a conclusion, "my interpretation of Genesis is correct", and finds evidence to fit that conclusion. Non-museumites should be careful of making that error. Roches (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Roches, the scientific literature says it does not meet the standards of a museum. If they sometimes refer to the "Creation Museum" as a museum, it is because its shorter than "Creation Museum" and they do not anticipate that creation science people would use the phrasing to misrepresent what they say about the Creation Museum. Collect, having collections of value does not make a building a museum. A person's house for example may contain valuable collections of coins, stamps, artwork, jewelry, etc., yet not be a museum because its main function is to provide a home. Similarly the main function of the Creation Museum is to persuade visitors that God created all the species, they did not evolve, which it does through representations of what they think prehistoric times were like. TFD (talk) 21:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Roches, thank you for your reasonable answer to my question way up above. But, considering the length of the discussion that followed it, I'm starting to be sorry that I asked. Whatever any editors (whether Tonto, Kimosabe, or Tryptofish) think about whether it is or isn't a museum, editors are not reliable sources, and all Wikipedia can do is report what reliable sources say about it being a "real museum" or not, and here, we have two "sides" to report. But I'd like to get back to what I thought was a worthwhile suggestion from 0x0077BE, way above. The suggestion was to delete the line about accreditation from the infobox at the top of the page. I support deleting it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you can do that. I'm here for an RfC invite, and I guess I get outvoted. From my perspective, an opinion piece in what is essentially the AAM's newsletter is not "the scientific literature says." It's an opinion (it's a reprinted letter of personal communication) and it was published six years ago. There are several formal definitions of a museum and I tried to demonstrate that the Creation Museum is a museum unless you add an arbitrary clause just to exclude it. I also don't see how this is a sufficiently important issue that Wikipedia is obligated to report both sides in the introduction. There is a real risk that AiG will use the non-museum status to deride Wikipedia and evolutionists, but I guess they do a lot of that anyway.

These corrections must be made:

"some scientists and museum professionals" has to say which scientists and museum professionals have made the claim

the Jennings paper and either or both of the AAM or ICOM definitions of a museum must be cited (they are cited in the article body)

Roches (talk) 02:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if we can consider if this was another, less controversial museum, if people would be as concerned with the accreditation? Maybe if it was the fly-fishing Museum, or the Croquet Museum, if it would matter? It seems that concern with the topic makes us more concerned with trying to discredit it, but it seems like it functions just fine as a museum even if the material concerned is questionable (or not). Prasangika37 (talk) 14:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• Omit mention of non-accredited status. As 97% of museums are not accredited, this lack of accredited status tidbit is not noteworthy. Also, the article is critical enough without the info. Finally, adding the tidbit has portents of SYNTH – e.g., A: the CM says it is a museum; + B: it is not accredited; therefore, C (implied): it is not a real museum. – S. Rich (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The OED defines a museum as "A building in which objects of historical, scientific, artistic, or cultural interest are stored and exhibited."[6] Webster's[7] and other dictionaries have simialr definitions. It can include a fly-fishing or croquet museum. TFD (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• I've just made two WP:BOLD edits. In the first, I added cites, that are already in the main text, to the sentence in the lead. It seems to me that this edit has no opposition from editors who favor continuing to mention accreditation in the lead, and goes partway, but not all the way, towards addressing some of the concerns of some of the editors who oppose including the content. I also, potentially more controversially, made a second edit, removing the mention of accreditation from the infobox at the top of the page. I expect that this edit will be supported by editors who oppose content about accreditation and opposed by some editors who favor the content. I don't know whether or not that edit will be reverted. If it stands, I suggest that the net effect of the two edits may be to split the difference, and be as close as editors in this discussion are going to get to a consensus. In my opinion, the source material requires us to address accreditation for this museum, but the infobox listing is not necessary. My guess is that going further in either POV direction will not have consensus, so maybe this is the best that we can do. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Can we organize this RFC a bit more, maybe get down to the actual voting? Even the statement is a bit hard for me to parse. When I initially commented on it, I thought that we were talking about the Criticism section, not the lede, and I didn't even see the part in the lede about accreditation. I think we should add a "Votes" section so that we can see the state of the consensus at a glance (as is normal for RfCs). Ideally, I'd like to see the RfC statement reworded to specify what the exact question is (just the lede, or inclusion in the whole article?), but at this point that may be closing the barn doors after the horses have escaped.

Regarding the actual topic to be commented on (now that I have seen the text in the lede) - I can understand the politics going on here, but honestly, I would guess that most people have no idea that museums even have accreditation - I understand putting the criticism in a "criticism"/"controversy" section, where you can actually get into the point and counterpoint, but it's a bit POV to put it in the lede like that. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 22:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Question As WP:CRIT states: "Editors should avoid having a separate section in an article devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints", I have been looking for ways to move relevant content from the criticism section to into other parts of the article. In that section, we have this sentence: "The Guardian called the facility "quite possibly […] one of the weirdest museums in the world". Is this an implicit acknowledgement that the author of the Guardian piece considers the CM a musuem? After all, it can't be "the weirdest museum" if it is not a museum; otherwise, it wouldn't be comparable to other museums (apples to oranges and all that). If this is such an acknowledgement, then this sentence (possibly rewritten) could be moved to the second paragraph under "Displays and exhibits", which discusses reliable sources' opinions of the CM's museum status. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

My 2 cents in reply is that, broadly, I like your approach to integrating criticism, but I think we have to be careful about WP:SYNTH with respect to the Guardian quote. If, hypothetically, the author had said "I consider it to be technically a museum, but it is quite possibly […] one of the weirdest museums in the world", that would be one thing. But taking what is clearly a critical/pejorative statement about the subject, and presenting it as representing a "side" in the debate that may not be the actual POV of the source cited would be a mistake. On the other hand, it might be appropriate to present it as an example of a critic who has compared it unfavorably to traditional museums, without reading anything into whether the author considered it to be a real museum or not. It's very much a matter of how we word it, and we need to be cautious about not going beyond what the source says explicitly. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

What about just moving the present sentence to immediately follow the Argumentation and Advocacy quote? Or maybe something like, "A 2006 article in the Guardian noted that, because the museum's contents 'with the exception of a few turtles swimming in an artificial pond, are entirely fake', it might be 'one of the weirdest museums in the world'"? That does seem to relate to the (would-be) preceding quote, right? It also gives context to the Guardian quote. It isn't necessarily because of the subject matter that the Guardian says it is weird, but because the exhibits are "fake" (i.e. manufactured). That doesn't come across in the present usage. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes (and noting that it ends up not really being about the RfC question), I think that would work, particularly with your revised version of the sentence. In that case, I might put a paragraph break after the new sentence, so that the middle paragraph would be about "fake"ness, and the following paragraph would be about the accreditation issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

In this article, I think "moving relevant content from the criticism section" contributes to a biased POV, not a neutral one. Having a criticism section for a drug, for example, might bring undue attention to negative viewpoints. This article is so obviously controversial that I think a criticism section is more NPOV than peppering criticisms all over the article. That doesn't mean all the criticism should be in the criticism section, but I disagree with moving content out of that section because some guideline says so.

Please don't use the Guardian article. The museum has more "real" exhibits now than when that article was published eight years ago. Roches (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment of the Criticism section. Grouping criticisms together with the subject matter being criticized makes it easier for the reader to assess the various aspects of the museum. Grouping it all together in one section just turns it into a laundry list of "this person doesn't like this, and someone else doesn't like that". It also encourages drive-by additions of marginally relevant criticism. Any time a negative comment is reported in the media, editors may feel the need to add it to this section, since by and large, the section isn't tied to anything else. It's just a list of gripes.

As for your comment about not using the Guardian source, are you asking to remove it from the article altogether? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Roches, it seems to me that both of your points reflect your personal opinions, but not the more widely-held editing practices of Wikipedia. We do not omit sources because an editor considers them to be "wrong", and I don't think the main point of the Guardian quote is out-of-date. However, the subsection of the quote that specifies the turtles may be out-of-date, and perhaps should be left out of the revised sentence. (Perhaps: "A 2006 article in the Guardian noted that, because the museum's contents with a few exceptions, 'are entirely fake', it might be 'one of the weirdest museums in the world'.") As for criticism sections, it's a perennial argument on Wikipedia, and I think that it largely comes down to editorial judgment page-by-page. But the essay at WP:CRIT does a pretty good job of summarizing the usual consensus, that dedicated criticism sections tend to attract laundry lists of criticisms that often skew POV. In any case, what Acdixon suggested neither eliminates the criticism section nor moves all the existing criticisms elsewhere on the page back into that section. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

This subsection of the discussion has been quiet for a while, and it seems to me that it would be OK to go ahead with that revision and move of the sentence, in the shorter form I suggested immediately above. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Omit because accreditation is not a criteria 97% of museums use to establish legitimacy. The legitimacy of the science used in the science museum is discussed adequately in the rest of the article. Markewilliams (talk) 12:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

But 90+% of museums don't have reliable secondary sources discussing the issue of them being unaccredited, whereas here, not only are there such sources, but also a reliable source written by the Museum founder, Ken Ham. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• Omit. The "formal definition" of a museum is "an institution devoted to the procurement, care, study, and display of objects of lasting interest or value; also : a place where objects are exhibited," according to Merriam-Webster. To imply that the institution does not fit this definition is to mislead the reader. Clodhopper Deluxe (talk) 04:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I apologize that I seem to be responding to everyone who argues for "omit", but I keep seeing arguments that strike me as very poorly thought out. There is no single "formal definition", and there are reliable sources that are just as valid that disagree with the premise that, here, the "objects" are of "lasting interest or value". Indeed, the overwhelming majority of these objects are artificial and created to argue a point. It would be misleading to pretend that such other sources do not exist. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Clodhopper Deluxe, it does not meet that definition. It displays replicas of objects that would be of lasting interest or value, not the originals. The Garden of Eden displays for example do not contain any objects that were in the garden. The "Bible Characters" displays do not contain any objects that were owned by any of these characters. In comparison, the British museum has remains of pharaohs, ancient statues, and other relics. TFD (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

It also has fossils, a major insect collection and a planetarium. Your definition of a museum not having replicas of anything, by the way, would make the V&A into a "non-museum" <g> as a great deal of it is "replicas." Collect (talk) 15:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

My understanding of the sources that are critical of the Museum is that they are arguing that the "replicas" are replicas of things that never existed. We know, for example, that certain ancient statues actually existed, so a replica of such a statue would be a replica of something real, whereas a replica of people accompanying dinosaurs is a "replica" of something that the sources that criticize the Museum consider to be a fiction. (I'm also not aware of non-fringe sources that cite this museum as an authoritative collection of, for example, insects.) --Tryptofish (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that the Allosaur is a real example of a museum exhibit, that the insects are real examples of a museum exhibit and that most museums do, indeed, have dioramas and the like consisting entirely of "replicas" of non-existent scenes in reality. Further, it is not the job of Wikipedia editors to define "museum" where the term is in general common usage for any assortment or display of "interesting stuff" but rather to use what reliable sources state the definition to be, and to refer to such sources in a consistent manner following WP:NPOV and other policies. The question as to whether insects are "accessioned" or not is a tad irrelevant for encyclopedia purposes. What is required is that we treat all topics in a neutral manner -- which basically means we can "know" a person is worse than Hitler, or that a politician secretly amassed $1 billion in bribes, but we can not use what we "know." We must use as best we can what reliable sources state and do so in a neutral manner, no matter how much we love or hate a topic. Collect (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

What your understanding glosses over is that typical dioramas of that sort may be generalized recreations, but they attempt to be recreations of actual historical reality, whereas here, we have recreations of what our sources say are events that never, by any remote stretch of the imagination, actually happened. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

It is not my "definition of a museum not having replicas of anything." It is the Merriam-Webster definition of a museum having (some) "objects" of "lasting interest or value". Certainly the Creation Museum has some collections, but none of them relate to creation. Similarly, the Capitol contains collections of various things, but it is not a museum because they are incidental to the purpose of the building. The Creation Museum also has a petting zoo, a bookstore, a theater and a restaurant. That does not make it a zoo, bookstore, theater or restaurant. TFD (talk) 15:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• Would this help? In the main text, we cite Ken Ham's response that the Museum does, in his opinion, meet the criteria for accreditation. Should we also, briefly, indicate that in the lead? I'm ambivalent, because it risks getting too verbose for a lead section, but I'm receptive to finding compromises about balancing POV. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Sound of crickets. I guess the answer to my question is: apparently not. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• Isn't the Torah scroll depicted in the image an object of lasting value? The argument that this institution isn't a museum has nothing to do with replicas. It's based on a definition that was made up by some professional organization. Clodhopper Deluxe (talk) 00:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • What does a fragment of a 300-year old bible have to do with creation unless it had been the original written by Moses? I would be disappointed with an English history museum where none of the items displayed actually came from England. TFD (talk) 01:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Omit accreditation status - As noted above, fairness demands that if we note lack of accreditation here, we should also note it for all museums without accreditation. Plazak (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

While I'm actually in favor of omitting the accreditation status in the lede as being POV, there's an argument to be made that inclusion is merited in this case but not others to reflect the weight of the concept in the sources. If 90% of the articles on this particular museum were about its accreditation status, then it wouldn't be giving undue weight to the idea, even if it's not something you usually talk about with museums.0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 19:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

As for what "fairness demands", WP:RGW– and the fair thing to do under Wikipedia policy is to present the source material as it exists, not as some editors want to sweep it away. For all those other museums, as also noted above, we do not have reliable sourcing discussing the lack of accreditation. At this page, we have reliable secondary sources that discuss the lack of accreditation, as well as a reliable source in which Ken Ham, the founder of the Museum, discusses the accreditation issue. That's unlike all those other pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. We can and have only really acted according to Wikipedia's norms. And by those norms including a sentence in the lead when something is covered in the body of the article in greater detail is entirely normal.GliderMaven (talk) 23:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Zero denied in 2013 [8]. [9] 2011 zero applications denied. I did not find the 2012 denial count, but rather suspect it is in line with 2011 and 2013. [ http://aam-us.org/about-us/media-room/2014/reinvented-accreditation-program-now-accepting-new-applicants] states that the group accepted no new applicants from 2010 to 2014 which would make applying for accreditation a tad impossible in that four year period. (Instead of a three-year process dominated by a voluminous paper Self-Study, museums will complete the entire accreditation review process in about 11-16 months and submit all their materials online. Not only 50% shorter than the previous paper version, the online Self-Study for first-time applicants features customized questions for museums that don’t own collections or only borrow objects, and provides question-by-question “Help.” ) Note that the new system does not require ownership of collections ("accessioned"). Collect (talk) 15:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe that's interesting, but it has nothing to do with this particular discussion, since it doesn't mention Hamm or the creation museum. Anything we draw from that article would be WP:OR. Again, we don't have to discuss the merits of this argument. Just the weight. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 16:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

We link to the association to show that this museum is not on the accredited list -- the fact that there were zero applications allowed to be submitted for four years seems pertinent. If one could not apply in the first place seems to indicate that such organizations could obviously not be accredited in the first place. D'oh. Collect (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's pertinent to how much stock we personally would put into claims about accreditation, but that's got nothing to do with this discussion. We're not in the business of making Ken Hamm's arguments for him. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 18:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

We are, however, in the business of "neutral point of view" and thus we must -- if we use material from one part of a website -- be open to also using contradictory material from that same website. We use the association website to show that a museum is not accredited, thus we must also use the information on that same website detailing accreditation. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

And if there were anything about Ken Hamm on that website, we'd be fine with using it. If this were a page about museum accreditation, we could use it. The relevant standard here is whether we're giving it undue weight by mentioning it. That is completely independent of whether or not it's an accurate or valid criticism, so not only do we get to completely avoid the argument of whether it was even possible for Ken Hamm to register for accreditation, we're obligated not to base any decisions on the validity of the criticism. It doesn't matter if it's a bad argument, what matters is that we're presenting each side's arguments fairly, which means using reliable secondary sources as to what they actually said, not deciding what criticisms are invalid and excluding them. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 18:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I looked at those links. The link for decisions in 2013 shows 73 (unnamed) museums applying that year, of which 45 were given accreditation, 14 had their applications "tabled" without accreditation due to various "specific concerns", 0 were "denied", and 14 were "other", due to incomplete consideration. We can reasonably conclude that the CM was not one of those 45, but that's all we know without engaging in WP:OR. They might have applied and been "tabled" or "other", or they might not have applied. We don't know. The link for 2011 was, for me, a dead link. The link about the application process says that a new simpler process was implemented in 2013 2014, after having not accepted new applications since 2010. We know that the CM opened in 2007, and that Ken Ham's blog post was in 2013. Anything more is editor speculation. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Did you note that the new application process did not exist (that is, no one could even apply) from 2010 to 2014? The 2011 link was live for me - and had the "zero" figure as well. It is possible that if one could not apply even if one wished to, that "not applying" was the likely position for anyone during those four years when no new applications were even being accepted. Also note that the need for an "accessioned collection" is no longer a requirement to be a museum. Collect (talk) 20:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I just corrected a typo in my post above. I also clicked again on the 2011 link, and got an error message again. The application process link indicates that no new applications were accepted during that time period (2010–2014). Applications appear to be multi-year processes, so other applications were working their ways through the pipeline during that period. You seem to be focusing on the 0 figures for "denied", while not acknowledging the figures for "tabled" or "other". Whatever the rules about "accessioned collection", we already report on the page that Ken Ham says in his blog that the CM satisfies the accreditation criteria. I'm still waiting for a source that says whether or not the CM applied for accreditation between 2007, when they opened, and 2010, when new applications were suspended. And if, hypothetically, they did apply, I'm still waiting for a source that says whether they were "tabled", "other", or whatever. And if they did not apply, I'm still waiting for a source that says that, or gives a reason. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The process in effect in 2007 would have resulted in a 4 year process per the cite given -- thus the earliest any accreditation from a museum applying n 2007 would have been settled is 2011, a year for which we know no museum was denied accreditation. We know none was denied in 2013, and I did not find any figures for 2012 - the only year in which, if the CM had applied in 2007 or 2008, a denial would have been possible. Hamm has stated they had not applied, so that pretty much would corroborate a claim that they were not denied accreditation. The association specifically states that they will say nothing whatever about any application at all (cite given above). Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Where did Ham say they didn't apply? I'd be very interested to see that. What I have seen is that multiple institutions that might have applied around 2007–2009 had their applications "tabled" or "other". That would also result in not being accredited (as would, of course, not having even applied). Do you acknowledge that the link you provided shows statistics for "tabled" and "other"? What I have also seen are reliable secondary sources that discuss the lack of accreditation of the CM (unlike most unaccredited museums), and a source in which Ham, himself, discusses it (but never says anything about whether or not they applied). My argument is that it is unproductive for editors to engage in WP:OR about what might have happened, and that we should include on the page what the sources say. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Since this conversation appears interminable, I actually went back and looked at the sources we keep discussing, and I noticed something interesting. The debate that is actually reflected in the sources is not about the CM's accreditation; it is about whether or not the CM is a museum. Look back at the sources. The article by Gretchen Jennings references accreditation only once, on the second page, when she says,

"The lack of valid connection with current worldwide thinking on their chosen discipline is why I maintain that creationist centers of display are not museums. (I would say the same of an institution whose exhibitions denied the Holocaust) and why AAM and other representatives of the field should not confer this title officially on these institutions in the unlikely event that they might seek accreditation."

Leaving aside Jennings' improper conflation of accreditation and the use of the term "museum", what she's really opposing is the labeling of any creationist museum (not specifically the CM) as a "museum".

Now also look at Ken Ham's blog post. The only mentions of accreditation are in the pull quotes – one from a newspaper comments section (hardly a reliable source) and the rest referencing the accreditation of the Cincinnati Museum Center. Ham never addresses the issue of accreditation in the post. He does, however, argue that the CM meets the dictionary definition of a museum.

Next, I will quote from the Kelly and Hoerl article, since it is paywalled:

"Although the Creation Museum is advertised as a tourist attraction on the basis of its museum status, it does not house an accessioned collection, a central criterion for being recognized as a museum by the American Association of Museums (American Association of Museums, 2000)."

There is no mention of accreditation in the entire article. So what we're left with is a list of accredited museums from the AAM website that omits the CM, without comment. I'm somewhat embarrassed that it took me this long to review the sources, but when I did, I found very little there there. Add to this that this is the second go-round on this discussion of accreditation, and no one seems to have turned up any significant additional sources discussing the matter.

Given this, I think a discussion of whether the CM can rightly be called a "museum" is entirely appropriate; it is discussed in multiple reliable sources, and both viewpoints are addressed. The accreditation issue, however, isn't actually discussed in any detail in any reliable source that I've seen so far. Given that, I really don't see that it merits mention here. It's been the subject of way too much debate here to have no more coverage in the reliable sources than I have found so far. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

As usual, you have done an excellent job of looking accurately at the sources, and I thank you for that. And you are so correct about the interminable-ness of this discussion, and I apologize for now adding to it. If I may, I'll quibble with what you said about Jennings, as I read the source. You correctly quote her, but in context, she is talking much more extensively about when the accrediting organization should or should not grant accreditation to creation museums, so as the source presents it, there isn't that much distinction between the definition of a museum and the criteria for accreditation. Similarly, Ham's blog talks about the definition as a rebuttal to criticisms over accreditation. You believe that Jennings' "conflation" of definitions and accreditation is "improper", but I hope you'll agree with me that that is an editor's opinion not shared by the source. OK, end of quibbles.

I went back and looked critically at what the page currently says, as opposed to what editors are currently arguing about in talk. The text in Creation Museum#Displays and exhibits, second paragraph, is actually very faithful to what you summarize from the sources. I don't see anything there that fails to reflect the source material accurately and with due weight. That leaves us with the last sentence of the lead. I don't see any problem with the second half of that sentence, after the comma. So that, finally, leaves us with the first half of the sentence. (I already took the line about accreditation out of the infobox.) The first half of that sentence is reliably sourced and verifiable, and it all comes down to due weight. If it will end this interminable discussion, I'm willing to consider rewriting the sentence, to leave out accreditation, while expanding on why scientists and museum professionals say what they say. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I would expect Jennings to equate the title "museum" with accreditation, since she's a professional in the museum field, but I think the discussion on this page demonstrates that this is too narrow a definition to reflect the common understanding of what is generally considered a museum. Her larger point, though, is that "Creationist museums are not museums" (given that it's, you know, the title of her article!) I think that's the point we should be concerned with here, since it's the one the average reader is most likely to relate to.

I disagree that Ham's article, or the comment that sparked it, really, is about accreditation. Yes, the commenter cites lack of accreditation as evidence of his larger point, which is "This is not a museum ... Please stop referring to it as such." That Ham quotes the dictionary and the AAM web site rather than AAM's formal standards of accreditation shows that he is concerned with the former, not the latter, in terms of defending the CM's status as a museum.

All this said, I propose the following:

• Remove all mention of accreditation from the lead. The final sentence might read something like, "Some scientists and museum professionals have argued that it does not fit the formal definition of a museum and should not be referred to as such." Optionally, we could add a bit about Ham's rebuttal, but I don't think it's necessary. It should be clear that if the guy who built the place chose to call it a museum, he's pretty convinced it's a museum!
• Alter the second sentence of the second paragraph under "Displays and exhibits" to read, "Gretchen Jennings, editor of Exhibitionist, a bimonthly journal published by the National Association of Museum Exhibition, maintained that creationist museums like the Creation Museum are not museums at all and argued that if they applied for accreditation as museums, the application should be denied."
• Concisely add the opinions of Phelps, Meyers, and "mainstream scientists", as given in the sources I cited in my first comment of July 14, immediately after this revised second sentence.
• Revise the (current) third sentence of the same paragraph to read: "In a 2013 blog post, Ken Ham maintained that the Creation Museum is a museum, as defined by Merriam-Webster's Dictionary and the American Alliance of Museums' web site." As I stated earlier, I don't think Ham is all that concerned with accreditation in his post.
• Eliminate the final sentence in the paragraph. As noted elsewhere in this conversation, it is unclear whether the assertion about the lack of an accessioned collection is still accurate, given that a pretty extensive bug exhibit (I've seen it) and an Allosaurus skeleton have been added to the CM's holdings since this passage was written.

I think this preserves the mention of accreditation with appropriate weight, while focusing on the issue the sources seem most concerned about – the CM's status as a museum. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Anent "accessioned collections" - the new standards do not require any such collections at all per the AAM site. One of the changes when they opened up to new applicants after four years of being closed to new applications. Collect (talk) 16:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Include provided an RS offers this information specifically about this Museum so it does not violate WP:SYNTH. We should note the lack of appropriate credentials of this museum just as we normally do with a non-accredited school. Gamaliel (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

We note a number of non-accredited schools. How many non-accredited museums do we note? The list of the ones accredited should give a clue as to whether a museum is accredited by the AAM I would suspect. Collect (talk) 22:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

As pointed out numerous times before, most non-accredited museums do not have sources commenting on the lack of accreditation. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• The analysis by Acdixon has persuaded me to change my mind, in part. (Other editors in this discussion: changing one's mind in the face of thoughtful arguments, you might want to try that sometime.) I am now in favor of deleting the mention of accreditation from the last sentence in the lead (albeit keeping it lower on the page). However, it is obvious that part of what we are discussing here has to do with WP:NPOV, and I do not want any changes to the page to shift the NPOV balance of the page. Simply deleting the mention of accreditation from the last sentence of the lead shifts the POV of the lead in a manner that deemphasizes what critics have said about it; adding Ken Ham's response, if we did that, would make that problem even worse. I think we could add a quote from Jennings, indicating why she argues that it does not fit the definition. Right in the same passage where she discusses accreditation, she uses the phrase "[t]he lack of valid connection with current worldwide thinking". If we delete the half-sentence about accreditation from the lead, then I would want, strongly, to add that quote. With that significant alteration, I would support the first bullet point of the proposal.
• Second, third, and fourth bullet points: I agree entirely with Acdixon. I would add that we could, at the same time, move the sentence discussed above the section break into this section, and make a paragraph break in what is now the second paragraph.
• Fifth bullet point: I agree with that too. We could still cite that source amongst critics, without going into the accessioned thing.
• --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• It is very unclear what this RfC is about. If it's about "accreditation", then it is irrelevant - you don't need accreditation to be a museum (Omit). If it's about RSs stating that it is not a "museum", that should be included, whether in lede or "controversies" depends on the notability of the sources. Interestingly enough, Hammer Museum is a accredited museum... --Truther2012 (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Since my proposal above was here for almost 48 hours and didn't generate any major outrage – an accomplishment in itself, I'd say – I went ahead and boldly made the changes. I'm sure if someone doesn't like them, they'll be reverted, and we'll end up back here. I would say that I don't really think Tryptofish's concern about the NPOV of the lead being thrown off by eliminating the mention of accreditation is a valid one, but I've done my best to work in the suggested balancing quote as a show of good faith. At least maybe this edit will take the overall concern about accreditation and its weight in the article off the table. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I think your edit was very helpful. I've made some further edits, mostly minor, except for the fact that I added back a brief mention of accreditation lower on the page. If my and your edits prove stable, then perhaps this will resolve the concerns underlying the RfC. At least I hope so! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I thought expanding Jennings' thoughts viz a viz creationist museums and accreditation was sufficient, and I thought that's what had been agreed to with my proposal above. The fact is, as I've demonstrated above, we don't have any reliable sources directly discussing the accreditation status of the CM particularly. What we have is one source discussing the accreditation status of creationist museums generally, and one source that cites a (possibly outdated) accreditation criterion that the CM didn't meet in 2007 but might possibly meet now. The AAM link does not discuss the CM's lack of accreditation, it only serves to show that it (and lots of other museums) don't have it. Given this, I think the blunt statement of non-accreditation without elaboration – because the sources do not allow for elaboration – is WP:UNDUE.

Again, zero sources actually discuss the CM's lack of accreditation specifically. None. Still, in the interest of compromise and of burying this dead horse instead of continuing to whack it with a stick, how about following Jennings' opinion in the body by saying something like "As of 2014, no creationist museums have been accredited by the American Association of Museums."? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I, too, am eager to find a solution, although I'll think you will find that quite a few discussants, including me, still feel that some mention outside of the lead was appropriate. (I can refute some of what you say about zero sources if you want, but my hope is to end the ongoing back-and-forth.) I tried to couch what I wrote in terms of "like many other museums", but your wording is fine with me. I'll put it on the page now, and we'll both see what happens. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you'll also find that quite a few discussants thought mention of the CM's status as a museum was fair game, but didn't think the accreditation bit was that important, if at all. That's why I think this compromise will probably hold. I moved the sentence to follow Jennings' opinion because I think it reads better and has better context there. Otherwise, I can live with this if everyone else can. I'm eager to move on to some other points of discussion (although I may need a little break after this marathon!), but I want to put this issue to bed first so we can focus on one thing at a time. Thanks for your openness to opposing viewpoints and patience (and perserverence) to see this through to (hopefully) a resolution. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and thank you for your openness too. But about that sentence move [10], I'm concerned that it unintentionally implies a cause-and-effect: that the non-accreditation follows from Gretchens' article. In my opinion, it reads better the other way. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The article itself likely isn't the cause, but the thinking behind it probably is. Isn't Jennings' thinking reflective of that of other museum professionals? The majority of museum professionals don't think creationist museums are "real" museums and don't deserve accreditation. I suspect such museums are aware of this thinking and have never bothered to apply for accreditation. She even says "in the unlikely event that they might seek accreditation" which implies that none had at the time of the article's publication and that none were likely to following the article's publication. It also almost serves as a warning that such museums' applications wouldn't be welcomed and would have no chance at success. Leading with the bit about no creationist museums being accredited makes it seem as though some have tried and failed. Although we haven't been able to resolve definitively whether that is the case, in light of the evidence we do have, I don't see how anyone would not conclude that it is by far the less likely scenario. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

OK. I'm ready to move on. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

* RFC??? Speaking as a convinced anti-creationist, I am here because of the RFC, but I find that I can offer no substantial improvements to remarks and proposals on the lines of those of Acdixon, Tryptofish et al. Accordingly I currently have no further interest in discussing the topic. If for some reason (so far unimaginable to me) someone still wants my opinion on something, feel welcome to buzz me. JonRichfield (talk) 09:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

• Wow. Longest RfC discussion ever. I would love to comment and maybe offer comparison with the Museum of Jurassic Technology, but TL,DR. KDS4444^Talk 00:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

"...some scientists and museum professionals have argued" is weasel-wording. Any scientist familiar with the organization would come to that conclusion. It does not have a creation collection, ergo it is not a creation museum. Similarly a wax museum with no wax figures would not be a wax museum. TFD (talk) 05:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this wording isn't ideal in light of WP:WEASEL, but your assertion seems to imply that anyone who believes in YEC is not a real scientist, including MRI pioneer Raymond Vahan Damadian and probably others. Such an assertion would – probably justifiably – set off a giant debate that is only tangetially connected with the CM. Also, although some sources have made a point to take issue with the CM calling itself a museum, others have not, and consistently use the term "museum" when discussing the CM. This doesn't necessarily imply that they agree with the designation, but they might. I'm open to rewording, so long as we don't state or imply that every single scientist and museum professional in the entire world argues that the CM is not a museum. I don't think that's accurate or appropriate. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Scientists can of course believe in young earth science (Newton probably did) and many scientists are religious (Einstein was). But science is based on theories supported by empirical evidence and it would be hard to publish a paper in a peer-reviewed article that argued the earth was only 6,000 years old. That of course does not mean it is not, merely that the evidence is not consistent with that theory. But that is not why the CM is not a museum. It lacks a relevant collection. That could be because either (a) creation is a myth and therefore no relics can be located or (b) the earth was created 6,000 years ago but no relics have been found. TFD (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

That is your view, and it is a popular and defensible one, but I don't think we can attribute it to every scientist and museum professional in the world. That's my concern. As I said, I'm open to rewording an admittedly problematic sentence as long as we don't make it more problematic in the process. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Those are not my "views", but definitions of the terms. A "museum" for example is defined as "a building in which objects of historical, scientific, artistic, or cultural interest are stored and exhibited."[11] The "scientific method" is defined as "a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[12] So astronomers say that light from a star 10,000 light years away was emitted 10,000 years ago. While it may be it was sent out 6,000 or created in transit 6,000 years ago, 10,000 years is a better hypothesis. TFD (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

If this were as cut and dried as you seem to think it is, why would articles like the Jennings article – "Creationist Museums Are Not Museums" – have been published? Do we think the Exhibitionist is in the business of publishing articles about things everybody already knows and agrees on? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I did not say "everybody knows." Not everybody knows the definition of a museum, that's why we have dictionaries. Nor can one know a priori that it is not a museum, or for that matter that the Natural History Museum in London is a museum. TFD (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• Include - Keep the statement (as long as we can come up with good references). The statement accurately reflects the controversial nature of the museum. NickCT (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to make the longest RfC discussion in history even longer, but I share the WP:WEASEL concerns, and I have a suggestion. The sentence is "Some scientists and museum professionals have argued that, because of its misrepresentation of science, and what museum writer Gretchen Jennings called its "lack of valid connection with current worldwide thinking", the Creation Museum does not fit the formal definition of a museum and should not be referred to as such." A recent edit added the phrase "because of its misrepresentation of science", apparently in order to indicate what the scientists say. If one looks at the second paragraph of the lead, it already talks about "and scientists and educators have objected to the effects the museum and AiG's teachings could have on science education". I don't think it's necessary for the lead to come back to scientists again in the third paragraph. How about simplifying the sentence in the third paragraph to: "Some museum professionals have argued that, because of what museum writer Gretchen Jennings called its "lack of valid connection with current worldwide thinking", the Creation Museum does not fit the formal definition of a museum and should not be referred to as such."? That makes the whole "some scientists" problem vanish! Optionally, we could also move the "misrepresentation" phrase up to the second paragraph, and that's probably a good idea, because scientists are concerned about a lot more than just effects on education: "and scientists and educators have objected to the effects that the misrepresentation of science in the museum and AiG's teachings could have on science education". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

It is still Weasel-wording. We do not say "some geographers argue that Washington D.C. is the capital of the U.S." The phrasing opens the possibility that some or even most scientists have a different opinion. "Some" should only be used if a reliable secondary source uses it. TFD (talk) 22:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether you realize that my suggestion would completely remove the phrase "some scientists". If, instead, you are objecting to "some museum professionals", I think it would be fine to delete "some" from that, in that we are pretty much dealing with some museum professionals who express that criticism, and others who do not comment on the subject (in comparison to pretty much all mainstream scientists who take one position, and some fringe outliers who dissent). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I have attempted to address the WP:WEASEL concerns with and edit based on this suggestion. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 12:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

That looks good, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose From reading through the comments and article, and how I would define a museum, yes, the Creation Museum is just that a Museum. We need to ask ourselves, what is a museum? When I hear that there is a museum, I envision a site where artifacts from the past are kept and presented. Some of these have an agenda, either it is art, science, or some other topic. I do not see how this museum should be considered any different. It meets the criteria that a reasonable person would associate with a museum. Furthermore, the addition of this sentence seems to tip the balance of neutrality without a counter that balances it. I do not see the validity in adding the proposed sentence. Jab843 (talk) 01:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Resolved?

At this point in the very-long RfC discussion, I think that the edits that have been made to the page in response to the discussion have completely removed all of the issues that were raised originally in the RfC. Are there still any unresolved concerns, or am I correct that everything in the RfC has now been resolved? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

For my part, I'd say yes, but since Collect (talk · contribs) opened the RfC, I guess we should wait for him to weigh in. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

IIRC, my concern was making the accreditation issue a claim in the lead. It appears the consensus is that it not be in the lead, which agrees with my stance. I am still quite uncertain whether the link to the "list of accredited museums" might be undue as it proves nil unless one can find a source averring that the CM made any attempt to join that association in the first place. Not being a member of something you did not apply to be a member of is not exactly earthshattering in significance, AFAICT. I am not a member of a great many organizations, but that does not mean much about much of anything. Collect (talk) 20:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

So, I guess a remaining issue concerns the sentence "As of 2014, no creationist museums have been accredited by the American Alliance of Museums (AAM).", lower down on the page. (Obviously, I've already expressed my support for including that sentence, based on the fact that sources discuss the issue.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Right. I think there are no accredited museums for waterclocks either, or Coca-Cola, ... even though they are valid topics for a museum. If we try saying "this is important because they did not even apply in all likelihood" (bearing in mind that no one could even apply from 2010 to 2014, and that the organization stated one major problem was the very high cost of becoming accredited) we really are in treacherous OR territory. Recall -- 97% of all US museums are not on the list. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you and I each know what the other says about that. I won't repeat what I've already said, refuting that, but it can be found above. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I went over the discussion, and by my count, 22 editors have commented somewhere here. Keeping in mind all the caveats about WP:VOTE and the fact that not everyone commented on the same thing, I think that approximately 13 editors gave opinions that are at least roughly supportive of such a sentence, and approximately 9 gave opinions that are at least roughly in opposition. Plus or minus a bit. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

AFAICT, the clear consensus is that the claim about not being accredited does not belong in the lead at all, and there is an apparent consensus that any claim that it is "not a museum" is an opinion which must be stated clearly as an opinion and ascribed to those holding that opinion in the body of the article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Please correct me if I've missed something, but I'm pretty sure that that is the state of the page as it exists right now, as a result of the edits that were made in response to the discussion here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Did I say the current wording was not compliant with the consensus? (Noting, of course, that wording can always be improved to make articles more readable as a rule on Wikipedia) I do, of course, feel that Jennings comments are more appropriate for the body of the article than its extensive use in the lead where some might view it as the near unanimous position of reviewers as it is not contradicted or counterbalanced in any way. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I interpreted your comment as indicating that there were still RfC issues to be resolved; thank you for clarifying. The bot has made the RfC expire, I see. I'm fine with the position that the original reasons for the RfC have now been resolved, but that there are, always, further points that can be improved. Indeed, I think that the page has evolved (if that's an appropriate word to use here!) a lot over the course of the RfC, and there really have been a lot of changes in the direction that you asked for when the RfC began. I don't think that deleting the sentence quoting Jennings from the lead would be an improvement, nor do I think what she says is anything other than a mainstream view among scholars. If you have sources that you would like to add to counterbalance her view, I'd be happy to discuss them. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.