Talk:Creationist museum

Add list of museums

More information on the subject is contained in User:GRuban/List of creationist museums, which is a former wiki article previously judged inadequate to be a stand-alone article. Any objections to merging the information into this article? Plazak (talk) 18:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

No one objected, so I added the content. The article is now more complete and much less US-centric. Plazak (talk) 02:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

45% of Americans believe God created Earth as it exists now 6000 years ago? This statistic sounds rather high from me. Are there other sources that state the same? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awrootbeer1123 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I added another ref, by the Gallup organization, that shows that the 45% figure is pretty stable over a number of years. Plazak (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

User:John Snow II and I have been sparring over the wording in the lead paragraph. Pending consensus or semi-consensus here, I have restored it to its old wording. John Snow II's wording is below:

A creationist museum is a facility hosting exhibits which mimic the established natural history museum format to present a creationist view that the Earth and life on Earth were created some 6,000 to 10,000 years ago in six days.[1] Such facilities generally promote Biblically-literalist creationism and contest evolutionary science; they have resultantly received heavy criticism from the scientific community.[2]

What does everyone think? Plazak (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to hear John Snow's reasoning. Personally, I like the citation of the potential size of the audience, as I would not have expected it to be such a large percentage. --GRuban (talk) 21:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd prefer some "polls suggest" qualification in the figures - the UK one amazes me. Apart from my (long-dead) granny's vague doubts on the matter, I've never met any UK creationists. And the only one of these museums we have in the UK is housed in a former high street bank. Johnbod (talk) 01:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that adding "suggest" is appropriate unless there is some legitimate reason to doubt the cited source. I was surprised by the US figures as well, but Gallup is a well-regarded pollster, a WP:RS for opinion, and their US figures are consistent over a number of years. As for Britain, is the Telegraph a WP:RS? Or are there any other British polls on the subject?

I disagree - single poll evidence should always be treated with reserve. Johnbod (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Good reason to treat it skeptically. I agree. Plazak (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello there. I didn't realise we were sparring, but happy to discuss. I humbly submit that the wording I proposed was just clearer, and more accurate. Selective quotation of random statistics can be editorialising, and in this case it was fairly obviously just that. John Snow II (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Just as it is fair to note in the lead that these museums are not, to say the least, in the mainstream of modern science, it is also fair to note that they are in or close to the mainstream of public opinion; perhaps that is why there are so many of them. I don't know why you call the statistics "random," as they address the size of their audience: vital to understanding the phenomenon, I think. Plazak (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, fair point, 'random' was wrong - what I meant was 'cherry-picked'. There's no way that these facilities are near the mainstream of anything. Unfortunately, individually selcted poll results can indeed paint an unrecognisable picture, as the obviously wildy-off figure that had been cited for the UK examplified. There probably isn't an appetite for a long lecture on social research methods here, but as Wikipedians you probably understand the methodoligical weaknesses of polls carried out to support shocking newspaper headlines, rather than as serious attitudinal studies.John Snow II (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't have all the details of the British poll, but it was published in a prominent newspaper. If you think that it was "cherry-picked," then give some counter-examples. As for the US number, it is from a series of polls using neutral questions, taken over a number of years by Gallup, a respected pollster, obviously not a push poll, and quite the opposite of "cherry-picked." If you believe it is "wildly off," then cite a better source, and we'll use it. Plazak (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090209195815/http://creationtruth.org/museum.htm to http://www.creationtruth.org/museum.htm

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)