Talk:Ark Encounter/Archive 1

Image?

Is there an image we can upload to this draft? Does AiG have a logo that we can use for this article per fair use? --1990'sguy (talk) 13:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Governor image

I commented out the image as it's a 2010 image and is not taken at an event where the gov might have "endorsed tax incentives". This may have an unintended intention of connecting the subject of the article to the governor. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

The connection is made in many, many independent sources, as Beshear first supported extending tax incentives to the park, then opposed them, as detailed in the article. It is quite common to include pictures of folks who are prominently mentioned in articles as illustrations. The context of the actual picture usually doesn't matter. See, for example, File:Martha_Layne_Collins,_governor_of_Kentucky,_Nov_8,_1986.jpg, which is a picture of Governor Collins speaking at the commissioning of the USS Louisville. It's used in many articles across Wikipedia, although somewhat humorously, not in the article on the USS Louisville. We rely on free use pictures, so we use the pictures we have. If we had access to the Associated Press or Getty Images archives, maybe we could find one of the press conference Beshear held to announce the tax incentives, but those will still be under copyright protection for a good number of years. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

As a politician and governor of course he would be mentioned by sources, but I would consider the connection to the article to be rather tenuous. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

POV tag

The article appears promotional in nature. Please see recent editing history and edit summaries for the issues identified already. The tone of the article does not appear to be neutral.

For example, I took out this passage, as the source provided states: "The press release was a joint effort, and the Ark Encounter provided the numbers for the release based on their own research Source: Kentucky.com

Material removed was:

• The release also cited a feasibility study commissioned by Ark Encounter, LLC and conducted by the American Research Group, that projected the park could employ 900 people, attract as many as 1.6 million visitors in its first year of operation, and generate a $214 million economic impact for the region.

References

K.e.coffman (talk) 15:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

You are straight-up overreacting with many of these edits.

• This edit seems to say that AiG isn't an acceptable source for reporting what AiG said, as noted by the sentence that starts out "According to AiG". Really?
• This edit removes an independent, third party analysis of the legality of the tax breaks, which by the way, ended up being validated by the court system. Perhaps you'd prefer us to quote from Judge Van Tatenhove instead, if we can find the text of the relevant opinion. The fact that it's in a quote box is to break up the wall of text that results from killing off all the images, as you have done. It's good technical writing practice.
• This edit removes information that is later important in terms of the need for another feasibility study. AiG did one, the state trusted it without seeing it, hence, they had to do another one.
• And with this edit, we really think our readers have no interest in seeing the guy who is so intent on building this giant boat?

I notice that for all the removal of anything that might reflect remotely positively as "promotional", there was no attempt to remove anything from Barry Lynn, Edwin Kagan, or Americans United as unnecessarily disparaging. I did my best to keep my POV out of the way as I assembled the article from reliable, third-party sources. I wonder if you are doing the same. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Acdixon, these edits are unnecessary, and it seems clear that you are overreacting. I know that it is good to have reliable third-party sources in Wikipedia articles, but that doesn't mean we should remove every single primary source from articles like these. There are plenty of third-party sources in this article. Its one thing to base articles like these completely off of primary sources, but it is another thing to purge these article of primary sources. They kind of go hand-in-hand. Am I wrong? --1990'sguy (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Primary and self-published sources are of extremely limited usability. See WP:PRIMARY and WP:SELFSOURCE. EEng 18:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but this is not an especially exceptional claim. Given that The Washington Post wrote a fairly lengthy article about all the green construction methods used in building the Ark Encounter, is it really all that hard to believe AiG's claim that they used renewable forests to source the wood? The sentence even starts with the qualifier, "According to AiG". This is the only sentence in the entire article cited to a primary source. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not at all hard to believe. But it needs to be reported by an independent source, even for "According to...". One reason for this is to keep down the amount of fluff -- if secondary sources don't report it, it may not be worth including. EEng 20:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Fine; re-added with third-party citation. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

So, I see that, rather than actually responding to any of this, you're just going to continue whacking away at content you find problematic without discussion. Regarding your recent edits:

• Regarding this, I think it's fine to remove the pricing, although I was thinking I had seen it in other similar articles, but the opening event is noteworthy, as would be the opening of any major attraction. The connection to the biblical flood is relevant, given the subject of the article, and it's also relevant because this schedule for the first few days was made to accommodate the anticipated surge of visitors at opening, which could exceed the park's capacity. The reader would know that if you hadn't also removed that.
• This is relevant to the surrounding content, which concerns the environmental stewardship shown by AiG in constructing the Ark Encounter, a topic that was the subject of a lengthy Washington Post story.
• Also, the previous edit removed an entire paragraph that was included to give the reader some idea of how the construction timeline progressed. Same logic here. Someone might be curious to know how long it takes to build something like this.
• This gives reasons the tax incentives were offered. As you have it now, it sounds like us poor, dumb rubes in Kentucky just wanted the ark built, so we gave AiG tax incentives to build it. The offer of tax incentives was based on projected tourism revenue, projections based on three different feasibility studies. Those studies vary in the magnitude of impact they project, but they all project a substantial impact. This is not promotional; it's based on the research of experts.
• Regarding this, it's OK to remove the bit about the largest timber frame structure, as that has now been debated ad nauseum, but the amount of wood and the number of display bays are encyclopedic facts reported in independent sources, that are worthy of mention. Also, the bit about seaworthiness is notable since later, Bill Nye challenged AiG to make the ark seaworthy. (I can add and cite this, if you want.) This shows that AiG believed it would have been but for the infrastructure required of a tourist attraction.
• Perhaps this should be reworded slightly, but the fact is, there is no agreement, secular or religious, on the exact length of a cubit. Because the dimensions of the biblical ark are only given in cubits, it is important to note what length AiG chose. Also, you have removed the actual dimensions of the Ark Encounter model with this edit; those dimensions are unquestionably an encyclopedic fact that merits mention in the article.

You'll notice that I haven't dismissed every concern: [1] [2] [3]. I'm open to making this a better article, but many of your edits look very reactionary to me. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I re-added some info, at least until we can get a consensus. Frankly, I like the fact that this article is as detailed as it is, as well as using good third-party sources. So, I would rather reach a consensus before removing all this content. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@Acdixon: I re-added all the content that you complained about. While doing so, I tried to fix and improve everything in response to you or K.e.coffman. The material should stay, at least until we all can find a consensus. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, 1990s guy. I made two changes for the content that I don't think belongs in an encyclopedia. I will review the rest and respond here before making further edits. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Seaworthy ark and more

1990s guy, thank you for scrubbing the problematic content. There are still a few areas I'd consider NPOV or non-notable. For example:

• AiG vice-president Mike Zovath said that the original designs would have produced a seaworthy ark, but the infrastructure and amenities needed to make it a working tourist attraction meant the finished product would not be capable of floating.

This is POV and there's no way to verify this as (1) WP:CRYSTAL ball, and (2) coming from AiG. Further, this is not notable since AiG did not, in fact, build a sea worthy ark. If they did, then that would have been notable. The fact that AiG said they could have built a sea worthy ark is not notable.

I still think it would be notable if mentioned in the context of Nye's challenge – presently absent from the article – to build a seaworthy ark. No, it doesn't prove that it is seaworthy, but it does show that AiG at least believes that they were able to meet Nye's challenge. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

AiG at least believes that they were able to meet Nye's challenge is still not notable per above. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

• Ham further announced that groundbreaking would occur in May 2014 and the park would open in mid-2016.

What is the point of this statement? It happened a long time ago; it obviously came from a press release; and the attraction is about to open, as the article states. This is appears to be a superfluous statement.

As I said, I think it would keep the reader chronologically oriented, but if consensus is against it, I won't fight too hard on this. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Chronologically oriented can also be confusion; the detail is not notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

• By November 2013, Zovath said that all of the site preparation for the Ark Encounter had been finished.

Same as above and comes from the org's spokesperson.

Same response from me. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• An observation cabin allowing visitors to observe construction progress was opened in June 2015, just before assembly of the ark structure began. Visitors paid $20 per vehicle to utilize the cabin, which AiG said was to cover the cost of erecting and staffing the cabin. Shortly thereafter, the media was invited to tour the site for the first time; on June 26, 2015, the Lexington Herald-Leader reported that the third rib of the ark had been lifted into place

What is the notability of this, or including the intricate detail of "June 26, 2015, the paper reported..." appears non-notable.

Again, the dates are for chronological orientation, but I felt like the observation bit was sort of a "pre-opening" event that was worthy of mention. I was also rather hoping that someone who had availed themselves of the opportunity would provide some pictures of the ark being constructed. I had hoped to get up there myself, but it's a good four-hour drive (one-way) for me. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Since this did not happen, the point appears to be moot. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't happen, especially if AE were to release one or more photos, as you note below. Also, I still think this is a notable pre-opening event, but I would be OK with trimming some of the detail. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 12:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• The organization also announced that, for the first 40 days and 40 nights of Ark Encounter's operation – an allusion to the duration of the biblical flood

This reads like the source was parroting a press release, and sourced to AiG.

This is a relevant event connected to the park's opening. As mentioned earlier, it is motivated by a concern that the number of initial visitors might overwhelm the attraction's capacity. Also, absent the qualifier, readers unfamiliar with the Genesis flood narrative may not realize the connection with 40 days and 40 nights. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Don't feel strongly about this; but still sounds promotional to me. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I really do feel strongly that this belongs alongside the bit about the potential for overwhelming the attraction's capacity. Re-added. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 12:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• Due to the fact that it was to be a projected boon to the state's tourism industry, ...

Who is making this statement, and "was to be..." is an awkward construction and wp:weasel.

It should be clear from the body of the article that this projection comes from multiple feasibility studies. The lead should summarize the body, and the sentence reads more smoothly, I believe, without specifically mentioning the studies. Nonetheless, for the time being, I have explicitly mentioned them in the lead. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

multiple feasibility studies include those commissioned by AiG. Upon reading the article, it was not clear to me if a notable RS vouched for AE being a tourism boon. The wording around this is wp:weasel as noted above. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Because AiG paid for all of them, they were all commissioned by AiG, but the various levels of government were satisfied by the neutrality of the studies enough to offer tax incentives. In fact, from what I remember, the state may have even selected the research firm for all but the first study, and AiG just paid for it because it shouldn't be the government's job to pay to make AiG's case. All of the studies confirmed a significant economic impact, although they each varied in the projected magnitude. I fail to see what is weasel-y about this. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 12:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

K.e.coffman (talk) 22:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

K.e.coffman, your points are fair. I wouldn't mind removing these statements, now that I see the problems.

For the 40 days/nights announcement, I wouldn't mind removing it for now, but I would consider re-adding it after the Ark Encounter opens (provided the specific announcement is reported in third-party sources). We'll see what happens, but it does seem that the Ark Encounter will be a reasonably notable attraction after it opens and will have a lot of publicity.

I don't think we should remove it, but I agree that we should get a lot more reliably sourced information for this article after the opening in a month. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

For the Noah's Ark being able to float, I wouldn't mind if you remove that, but I will say that I found a study, endorsed by creationists, but performed by a secular Korean organization, I believe [4]. I understand if its WP:FRINGE, though.

Although I've expressed support for the inclusion of the seaworthy quote, this study isn't really relevant here. It proves that an ark could have floated, but not that this particular ark could have floated. All that said, I am curious to see whether Johan's Ark will reach Rio in time for the Olympics, but that's also neither here nor there with regard to Ark Encounter. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Regardless, we should probably wait for Acdixon to comment. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for engaging in some discussion. I really don't care for dialog through edit summaries, and despite WP:BRD, I much prefer to give prior notice of major edits on the talk page before I make them. In addition to the issues under discussion, I'd like to re-raise the issues of the removed images and block quote, which help break up the text in a way that is beneficial to the reader. I have re-added the image of Ken Ham, as his connection to the Ark Encounter is undeniable. I still think the Herald-Leader quote box is relevant to the section in which it appeared, but I'm willing to wait to discuss that. If not this quote, I'm inclined to pull one from Judge Van Tatenhove, if I can find the text of the opinion. That would quickly give the reader the gist of the legal status of the tax incentives if they didn't want to wade through the gory details. Finally, I have re-added the information about the first feasibility study. Besides the argument I made above, the study has even more importance in light of multiple studies being mentioned in the lead as motivation for the tax incentives. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I commented above. The only interesting / potentially relevant point was about 40 days, which was a bit quirky. The rest still sounds problematic to me, mostly due to the content possibly being perceived as promotional and non-neutral.

Willing to let a lot of these go, but I feel strongly about a couple of them. See above and below. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 12:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The images and the quote appear to fall in the same category. As far as the images go, one could always approach AE to see if they could release (license) an image to Wikipedia. An image of the attraction would be much more relevant vs an image of the org's founder. If AE could be persuaded to donate an image, they can follow these instructions: Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If we had perfect images, we'd use them, but using what we have is better than using no images (or other visual elements) to break up the text for the user, which is a readability issue. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 12:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Bond sales - image caption

The current caption is not appropriate, as it presents, in Wikipedia's voice that: "Ken Ham's debate with Bill Nye spurred a bond sale for the Ark Encounter." This is WP:POV, as the article states:

• On February 27, 2014, AiG founder Ken Ham announced that his February 4 debate on the viability of creationism with TV personality Bill Nye "the Science Guy" had spurred bond sales, and that the Ark Encounter had raised enough money to begin construction.

References

This claim is coming from AiG and is therefore not neutral. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I changed to a more neutral wording. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

POV tag discussion

The POV tag is still on this article, despite a good bit of material being removed. Is it still needed? The article's DYK nomination is on hold pending the removal of this tag. Although I'm not totally happy with the article in its present state. I'd be willing to let it remain stable long enough for the DYK process to complete, at least. We can circle back to any issues after that, if anyone feels it is worth it. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 12:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Point 1. This area in the lead still looks problematic to me:

• After multiple independent feasibility studies projected that park would provide a significant boon to the state's tourism industry, the Ark Encounter received tax incentives... (in the lead)

While the article states:

• The release also cited a feasibility study commissioned by Ark Encounter, LLC and conducted by the American Research Group, that projected the park could employ 900 people, attract as many as 1.6 million visitors in its first year of operation, and generate a $214 million economic impact for the region.
• The state-commissioned study by Hunden Strategic Partners and paid for by Ark Encounter, projected that the park would draw nearly 1.4 million visitors a year, but could require the state to widen the Interstate 75 interchange at Williamstown, at an additional cost to the state of about $11 million.
• In July 2014, (...) filed a new one to receive incentives on the $73 million first phase. The new application required a new feasibility study to be conducted. AiG paid for the study, again conducted by Hunden Strategic Partners...

These do not sound like independent studies; they were all paid for by AE.

I've already explained this once. The state requires a feasibility study as a prerequisite to applying for tax incentives. The state commissions the study, but the applicant pays for it. (Doesn't make sense for the state to pay to make the applicant's case.) The studies were sufficiently independent for the state to judge them worthy of tax incentives. There is no COI at work here. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

So if we are to accept that the two later studies were indeed independent, it's still "two" studies, not "multiple" as the article suggests. So this still sounds POV to me. Can we remove this part of the sentence from the lead? Then the sentence would start with: "AE received..." K.e.coffman (talk) 00:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, the definition of "multiple" is "more than one", so the article is accurate as-is, but if it bothers you that badly, I'd be willing to drop the word "multiple", leaving just "After independent feasibility studies projected..." I refuse to drop the part about the studies, however. The studies were required in order to receive the tax breaks, they were the motivation for the tax breaks, and they unequivocally showed that the experts believe AE will be a boon to the local economy. These are facts; they are not POV. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 12:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• Consisting of approximately 3,200,000 board feet (7,600 m³) of wood, it is claimed by AiG to be the largest timber frame structure in the world.

While properly cited, these are still claims by AiG; not sure if Wikipedia should be replicating them in an encyclopedia article.

I thought the "largest" claim had already been removed, per a previous discussion. I removed it based on the rationale that exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for removing. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Point 2. Appears old or promotional (I believe I have already mentioned this?):

• An observation cabin allowing visitors to observe construction progress was opened in June 2015, just before assembly of the ark structure began. Visitors paid $20 per vehicle to utilize the cabin, which AiG said was to cover the cost of erecting and staffing the cabin. Shortly thereafter, the media was invited to tour the site for the first time; on June 26, 2015, the Lexington Herald-Leader reported that the third rib of the ark had been lifted into place.

Not really that old (about a year), and not really promotional either, as this is presently a way that visitors can see the Ark before the park opens. It could be a bit overly detailed, but this would absolutely not justify a POV tag, which is what we are presently discussing. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Point 3.

• Because the opening date would occur during the summer vacation season, ... ...offering day and evening tickets to ensure that the park did not exceed its 16,000 visitor capacity.

Sounds vaguely promotional; all major attractions of this nature open in the summer, when else? :-) The rest also sounds promotional.

References

K.e.coffman (talk) 05:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

No, this is not promotional, and it certainly is not POV. "All major attractions of this nature open in the summer"? I'm tagging that with a "cite needed". At one time, AiG actually planned to open the park in the spring. I'm assuming they thought they might not be ready in time, and/or they wanted the 7/7 date connection, as related in the article. The opening of the Creation Museum had some logistical issues associated with capacity and throughput that I'm sure AiG wanted to avoid here by opening in the lighter-traffic spring, but weren't able to for whatever reason. The day and weekend hours bit is relevant because of capacity concerns as well. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

If these are the only concerns you have regarding POV, the tag should come down post haste to let the DYK nom pass. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

This seems to suggest that it would be a smashing success, so per WP:Chrystal ball, I suggest removing the capacity concerns. It think it's best left for the local press to cover.K.e.coffman (talk) 00:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Once again, you are misapplying policy. We are not saying, in Wikipedia's voice, that we believe the AE will be a "smashing success". We are saying that AE decided to extend their hours for the first 40 days and 40 nights because they believe they could have problems with capacity. That's explaining AE's motivation for an event to take place at the opening of the park, which is both encyclopedia and non-POV. If those capacity concerns don't materialize, that will probably be reported by the sources, and we can add it then. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 12:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Since the content dispute involves just two editors, would you mind if I posted to Third opinion? They generally respond quickly. I would abide by their determination. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the wisdom of bringing some other editors into this discussion. I was kind of hoping that might happen on its own, but this being a new article, maybe not. I might specifically suggest Tryptofish, who has agreed and disagreed with both of us on Talk:Creation Museum. (Check the archives for several of his disagreements with me.) However, if that gives the appearance of my trying to rig the outcome, go ahead and post to the third opinion board. I've never tried that approach; I typically prefer a full peer review. For now, let's see where the third opinion goes, but that doesn't mean I might not go for a full peer review at some point. Now that I've put this much work into the article, I feel like it might be worthy of GA status, at least once the park opens and the frenzy of media attention surrounding that dies down. A peer review would help check my perception of the article's readiness for that status. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• 3O I am reviewing the dispute. Jclemens (talk) 05:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

So, I'm in general not seeing anything POV here. What I see is an article about a religiously/politically controversial theme park which seems to represent the facts surrounding the history of the controversies in a relatively neutral and even-handed manner.

1) Two is multiple, but if y'all can work out a more acceptable wording, that's fine.

2) The viewing cabin... I don't see that listing the $20 price tag is promotional, as I understand that's rather more historical than current. I'm also not sure it's terribly relevant, so can the price tag be dropped?

3) Projected numbers are pretty much just that: estimates. I don't think our readers are going to be confused about who is expecting what to happen.

Overall, I think the POV tag can be removed, the DYK proceed, and the discussion continue on further refining these points. It's be nice to see what actually happens next month before anyone tries to take this to GA, however. Jclemens (talk) 05:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for rendering the opinion. I removed the POV tag and made some adjustments to reflect the recommendations. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions for c/e

I've not taken these out; these are my suggestions for improvements in terms of concision, clarity or providing up-to-date information:

Point 1. These appear to be a non-notable individual / firms, and intricate detail; suggest removing:

• Cary Summers, who headed Herschend Family Entertainment from 1992 to 1998, was hired as the lead consultant for the Ark Encounter.
  • This shows that AiG brought in someone with experience in the industry to help design the park. That's something readers might be asking themselves, "What does AiG know about designing a theme park?" Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Cary Summers is no longer with Herschend, and appears to be a non-notable individual, as there's no article. This sounds a bit "coat-racky". K.e.coffman (talk) 01:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

One sentence does not a coat rack make. This individual does not have to have his own article to warrant mention in this article. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 12:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Point 2.

• The Troyer Group, a construction firm in Indiana, was contracted to oversee construction of the ark, which was constructed by Amish builders using timber framing and wooden pegs. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • This notes the Amish construction, which according to a speech I heard personally from Ham, was chosen because they have more experience with the Old World construction techniques used to build the ark (wooden pegs, etc.). I'm sure Ham has posted that information somewhere, and I'm sure if I tried to add it, it would be deleted as unreliable, irrelevant, promotional, or some other reason because it came from Ham/AiG, but it is noteworthy, I think. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Same here; sounds like a promo for the construction firm. How about omitting the name of the firm and leaving the Amish builders, etc.?. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

No, it is not. It's a neutral, once-sentence mention of the company that was employed to do the work. It's not promotional when the sources mention it (and many of them do), and it's not promotional here. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 12:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• There are 12 different possible lengths for the biblical cubit, (unclear)
  • This used to be better explained before all the attempts to purge anything related to AiG's claims from the article. The length of the biblical cubit is non-standard; this is beyond dispute and attested to in the Wikipedia article on the cubit. AiG considered 12 different lengths before deciding on the one mentioned in the article. (I've seen articles mocking the ark narrative by asking "Just how long is a cubit, anyway?"; this shows that AiG gave considerable though to trying to answer that question.) I would favor the restoration of the original wording, which noted that the 12 different lengths were considered by AiG researchers. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

This sounds like intricate detail; how about something along the lines of "AIG estimates produced the length of the ark as ..."

First, policy does not forbid intricate details. Second, because the length of the cubit is uncertain, it is appropriate to mention that consideration was given to various lengths. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 12:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• It contains 132 bays for animals, each standing about 18 feet (5.5 m) high. [Next para] The Ark Encounter consists of approximately 3,200,000 board feet (7,600 m³) of wood, and it contains 132 bays for animals, each standing about 18 feet (5.5 m) high. (repetitive) K.e.coffman (talk) 01:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Not sure how that got in here twice, but I removed it, as noted above. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Point 3. This appears to be unneeded intricated detail; could be shortened (i.e. restrooms, etc):

• The ark is held 15 feet (4.6 m) off the ground by three 80-foot (24 m) masonry towers containing stairwells, elevators, and restrooms. A theater and 10,000-square-foot (930 m²) gift shop are positioned below the ark, while a restaurant sits on its roof and another rests on the ground nearby. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't think it is intricate detail. It describes the layout of the park. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the Wiki article needs to describe the layout of the park in detail. This information is probably available on AE's web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not like we're trying to describe the entire floor plan. I, for one, was curious to know how the ark would be positioned, as I would assume most boats would be unstable if they just rested on their hulls, which are not flat. I also think it is interesting that they located the facilities and amenities outside the ark so the entire interior would be devoted to housing animals and such, just as the flood narrative suggests it would have been. I know this is probably not particularly interesting to you; that does not mean it is not interesting to anyone, nor does it mean it is not encyclopedic. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 12:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Appears to be intricate detail:

• Construction crews began clearing timber from the site late in 2012 in order to remove the shagbark hickory trees before the endangered Indiana bats migrated to the area to nest in them.
  • This is related to the subject of environmental stewardship, which is discussed in the article. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

This is old and unneeded:

• By November 2013, Zovath said that all of the site preparation for the Ark Encounter had been finished.
  • Fine; delete this one. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, none of these are related to the POV tag, right? I don't read it that way, but I want to be sure. My first priority is getting that cleared up, because I think it was misapplied to begin with. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Left some comments above, and yes, you're correct, this is unrelated to the POV tag above, which I also commented on. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, as most of this deals with what you are calling "intricate detail", we can start an RfC or a peer review to get more outside opinions on them, if necessary. Let's work on resolving your POV claims for now. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 12:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Most of the coverage here, and in the section above is from local papers, which creates an appearance of the article not meeting WP:NOTNEWS. We could try the Third opinion approach here as well, what do you think?

Again, feel free to ask for a third opinion, but that likely won't preclude me from seeking a full peer review at some point. As I said, my immediate concern is resolving the purported POV issues to clear that tag and let the DYK progress. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Third Opinion

A Third Opinion has been requested. I am not providing a third opinion, because the discussion is too lengthy for me, but will leave the third opinion request up in case someone actually is willing to wade through the tedious detail of the discussions of intricate detail. If the question is whether a Wikipedia peer review would be a good idea, in view of the number of questions, I think that bringing in additional editors, whether via peer review or otherwise, would be a good idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

"Junk" bonds

This edit changes the term "unrated" bonds to "junk" bonds, with the justification that the source calls them junk bonds. Actually, the source uses both terms, and I thought "unrated" sounded more professional, but I am not that familiar with finance terms. "Junk" sounds like a colloquial term to me, and could be construed as unnecessarily negative if "unrated" carries the same meaning. I'm looking for someone with some knowledge of this kind of thing to say whether "junk" is the preferred term or not. If both "junk" and "unrated" are acceptable and neither is preferred in the industry, I would favor "unrated". Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

"Junk bonds" is a standard financial term. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:05, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Usually, "junk bonds" refers to bonds that are rated as below investment grade by ratings firms like Moody's and Standard & Poors, which I suppose would also include bonds that have not been rated by those firms. All unrated bonds are "junk" bonds, but not all junk bonds are unrated; as it says at Bond_credit_rating#Investment_grade, Bonds that are not rated as investment-grade bonds are known as high yield bonds or more derisively as junk bonds. I would frankly avoid the "junk" usage, since it is non-neutral; unless you know what the interest rate is (and it isn't in the source), you can't really use "high yield" either. "Unrated" is more precise. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

This is the kind of explanation I was looking for. Thank you. I will make this change. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Withdrawn: External link proposal

Would there be any objections to adding a link with a picture of the proposed anti-AE billboard?

• Image of the proposed anti-Ark Encounter billboard, Courier Journal

K.e.coffman (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for posting this here before adding it. Per WP:External links: "No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link." So perhaps you should start by detailing what you think this link adds to the reader's understanding of the Ark Encounter and how the link is justifiable under Wikipedia's external links policy. The burden is not on anyone who objects to it to show why it should not be included, but on you to show why it should be. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure -- the article contains text "Tri-State Freethinkers planned to protest the Ark Encounter's opening with a nearby billboard..." but I assume picture cannot be included for copyright reasons. The easiest way is to link in external links for people to see what it was about. Does this make sense? K.e.coffman (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Seems like "intricate detail" to me. :) Seriously, you did not answer the question – what does the image of the billboard tell the reader about the Ark Encounter itself that they wouldn't otherwise know? The article is not about the billboard. It is not about the Tri-State Freethinkers. It is about the Ark Encounter. Yes, the Ark Encounter is controversial, but the reader knows that from reading the article. Yes, the Tri-State Freethinkers hate the Ark Encounter so much that they want to protest it with a billboard, but the reader also knows this from reading the article. The article even includes (perhaps unnecessarily) the text of the billboard, so the reader even knows the message the Tri-State Freethinkers wanted to send. The link you are proposing to add says the purpose of the billboard is to "troll" the Ark Encounter. And we want to help them do that by linking to an image of it? If not, what other possible purpose could it serve? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I withdraw my proposal. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:01, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Lots of metal appears to be used to hold wood together

This video shows numerous metal plates and bolts to hold this ark together, so this seems to counter the Amish wooden peg fluff. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAP9Q4QTIF4 • Sbmeirow • Talk • 03:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. Earlier sources reported that the ark would be held together with wooden pegs, but a recent source says that this was forbidden by modern building codes. This is now noted in the article. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Using 2011 sources to describe the construction - & mentioning nails but not steel plates

@Acdixon: We have a 2011 story saying " Scheduled to open in 2014, Ark Encounter will include environmentally sustainable technology "from Day One," Zovath said, and will be built by a firm that specializes in LEED-certified construction and design, the industry standard for environmentally efficient buildings. That means geothermal heating, rainwater capture, active and passive solar heating and specialized window glazing." The text it sources says "The park's structures and infrastructure were constructed using environmentally friendly Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design(LEED) certified methods, including geothermal heating, rainwater capture, active and passive solar heating." How can a source written before construction took place describe what actually happened? Troyer construction does follow LEED principles so that all may be correct, but we can't use a 2011 source to say what actually happened.

Mentioning nails but not the steel plates is misleading. Journalist Corinne Raimey wrote last year "When complete, it will use the equivalent of 626 miles of wood, in planks one inch thick and 12 inches wide. Within the ship are 95 tons of steel plates and connectors."[5] Doug Weller talk 16:02, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Well, I would expect that a lot of updates will be possible based on what will be written between now – when articles are already starting to flood out (no pun intended) – and a few weeks after the July 7 opening. I don't really see the harm here. We know the plans were for LEED-certified construction. We know the contractor is qualified to do such construction. We know that the Daily Mail wrote this week that "The attraction is designed to be family friendly, historically authentic, and kind to the environment friendly [sic]. It will be one of the largest green construction projects in the US." [6] And we have exactly zero suggestion from anyone, that I'm aware of, that any of this isn't happening as planned. To me, that means it is extremely likely that the statement is accurate. Will it really hurt to leave this as-is for a few weeks to see if any sources comment upon it further? If so, what do you suggest?

Regarding the "misleading" mention of nails but not plates, I added content based on the cited source, which only mentions steel nails, not plates. I had not seen the source you mention here. Please remember to assume good faith rather than accusing me of misleading edits. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@Acdixon: It didn't occur to me you might take it personally, sorry about that. I wasn't accusing you of anything, agf, right? The YouTube video linked above shows them. My source, by the way, was in the article. The Daily Mail isn't exactly a reliable source by the way. Would you be happy using it to say the ark is historically authentic? But we really shouldn't use a 2011 source as though it was a 2016 one. Doug Weller talk 17:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I expand text concerning the metal fasteners, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ark_Encounter&type=revision&diff=727545278&oldid=727530577 • Sbmeirow • Talk • 17:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sbmeirow and Doug Weller: I implemented the {{cite web}} template, but otherwise, this works for addressing the steel bits, if it suits you two. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for converting my reference. Removing the youtube link is fine too, since a better photo shows the metal plates in the article. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 18:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ark Encounter. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20160512105916/http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/atheist-groups-anti-ark-encounter-billboard-rejected-39031306 to http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/atheist-groups-anti-ark-encounter-billboard-rejected-39031306

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Number of species

The article needs to state the number of species that the ark is designed to accommodate. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

This will be a tough fact to include. We know how many bays there are (132), but not all of them will be devoted to animals. We also know that AiG talks about the biblical "kinds" rather than "species". The formal name they give to "kinds" is baramin. From what I've read, AiG believes about 1,400 baramin could have been supported on the ark, although the infrastructure (restrooms, etc.) required for the Ark Encounter will reduce this number substantially. So, at the moment, we don't really have a straight answer for this. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Bill Nye mentions 14,000 individual animals. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

$1 promo offer; AiG rebuttal

I removed them with this edit. Both were cited to AiG and IMO unneeded in an encyclopedia article. Please let me know of any feedback / concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

If you want to kill off the whole paragraph, FFRF threats and all, that's fine. Nothing has happened so far but posturing on both sides. But if FFRF's threats stay, then so should AiG's response, and those would naturally be published by AiG itself.

I note that, during your and others' edits at Creation Museum, the following content was removed:

Although groups from churches and Christian schools were anticipated as visitors, Ham said the museum would not try to attract tour groups from public schools, explaining, "I suspect by intimidation and threats of lawsuits, I doubt whether public school students, as an official tour, would come."

On the talk page, the reason for deletion was that the content constituted "AiG fear-mongering" because no such lawsuit had occurred. However, the next sentence was allowed to stay:

Steve Rissing, a biologist and board member of Ohio Citizens for Science, said that a lawsuit over separation of church and state would be likely if public schools used public tax money to bring students to the museum.

Ultimately, of course, trips did occur, and that's why a modified version of the content remains in that article. Now, the FFRF is the one initiating the conversation about field trips to the Ark Encounter, but their threats are being left in, while AiG's response is being deleted. Why aren't FFRF's threats "fear-mongering"? Why should they stay while AiG's response is deleted? Your track record now defies WP:AGF. You are clearly editing to promote an agenda. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Ultimately, Wikipedia is not a news outlet which needs to reach out to the other party to give them a say. It's an encyclopedia. That is why every statement critical of AiG does not require a rebuttal. Nor is giving AiG air time for their promotions appropriate. Here's the content removed:

• In responding, AiG stated in part that such trips were constitutional and that "it’s possible to attend the Creation Museum or Ark to teach rather than preach and to educate rather than indoctrinate."

• Ken Ham then posted on his blog that "If public school students are booked as a group through their school to come to the Ark Encounter (or Creation Museum) for educational, recreational, or historical purposes during 2016, we will allow them to do so at a cost of $1 per child with accompanying teachers free."

I believe this content should stay out. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

By the same logic, not every criticism of AiG needs to be included. Why is FFRF's threat more worthy of an encyclopedia than AiG's response? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

FFRF is a separate issue -- pls feel free to open a discussion on this one, if there's a concern. As to the statements on the promo offer & AiG's rebuttal, that looked concerning to me, so I made the edit. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not a separate issue. It's the same issue – public school field trips to the Ark Encounter. Either both sides are worthy of comment, or neither is. Which do you believe it to be? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Separate issue from the consensus perspective. No one has objected to the FFRF content, while I found the material added, which was cited to AiG, problematic. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I have objected to the FFRF content, unless it is presented alongside the relevant AiG response. As has been demonstrated at Talk:Creation Museum, the AiG response can just as easily be cited to a third-party source if that's your issue (even though citing AiG actions to AiG sources is not a violation of policy). And yet, my question still stands: why is the FFRF threat encyclopedic but the AiG response is not? All I hear so far is WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I've not participated in the FFRF discussion, but at first glance it's worth keeping as it was cited to secondary sources, while the promo offer / AiG rebuttal was self-cited to AiG:

• The Freedom From Religion Foundation, a secular organization that advocates for the separation of church and state, sent letters to over 1,000 public school districts in Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, Indiana and West Virginia warning them not to organize field trips to the Ark Encounter, arguing that such trips would "expose children to religious proselytizing in violation of the constitutional separation of church and state."

References

K.e.coffman (talk) 02:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I've re-added the content cited to a secondary source. I still fundamentally disagree with your assertion that nothing cited to AiG can be included. If we wrote that Earth is 6,000 years old and cited that to AiG, that's obviously problematic. If we say "AiG claims the Earth is 6,000 years old" and cited that to AiG, that is not problematic. This is an example of the latter, not the former. AiG is a reliable, acceptable source for what AiG says, and what AiG said, in this case, was eminently relevant to the subject matter at hand. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. There is nothing wrong with citing AiG for whatever AiG says, and there is no reason not to include AiG's rebuttal to FFRF. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Dimensions in the lead

I disagree with this edit removing the ark's dimensions from the lead. Typically, I would agree with the given rationale about this being too detailed for the lead, but the ark's size is probably it's most defining characteristic. It bills itself as "the largest timber frame structure in the world", and even if that turns out not to be the case – no independent media sources have questioned it – the fact is, it's a huge structure, and that's what most visitors, believers or no, will remember about it. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the massive size of the Ark Encounter has been widely reported/noticed. I don't particularly mind either version, though, at least as long as that fact is mentioned somewhere. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see it as a huge deal either way, but putting the dimensions of something in the lead is a bit too detailed. The RMS Titanic and Buckingham Palace don'the their dimensions in the lead, but if you feel it is important I have no issue. I will put it back. Lipsquid (talk) 18:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Controversies

Why is "Financing" included under the Controversies section? As far as I know, there was nothing controversial about the bond issue. Moving it elsewhere will break up the chronology of the narrative, though. I favor going back to the old organization of headings, removing the first-level "Controversies" heading and appending "controversy" onto "Tax incentives" and "Hiring practices" where it belongs, without making it seem like there was something controversial about the financing. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The issuance of a bond by a public entity to give the funding to be spent by a religious organization on a fairy tale theme park is controversial to say the least, some courts have said it is illegal. Lipsquid (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it is more appropriate to go with the former layout. The "Financing" section does not mention any controversy, other than the sentence about the atheist disruptors. FWIW, AiG did win a major case in federal court earlier this year related to this. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

That lawsuit was about the tax incentives, not the bond issue, though. No one has sued over the bond issue, which seems to reinforce that it is not controversial. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

And where in our article does it say this was controversial? Nowhere. Where in the reliable sources does it say this was controversial? Nowhere that I know of. The city is not on the hook if the park goes bankrupt. They are just a facilitator. It may be controversial to you, but our article does not record that it was controversial in any way. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

you said "there was nothing controversial about the bond issue." I answered. Why you can't find a quote on the issue? One of you two probably deleted any reference to the bond issue. You are clearly not here for a neutral article. Lipsquid (talk) 14:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Either bring the proof that "one of you two probably deleted any reference to the bond issue" or you are in violation of WP:AGF. I'm not here to write a neutral article? I WROTE the sections on the controversies AND the bond issue! If I were trying to whitewash, I'd have left the controversies out; I didn't. If I had found sources saying the bond issue was controversial, I would have added them. If you want to claim the bond issue is controversial, the WP:BURDEN is on you to bring the sources to support it to the table. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

You are killing me smalls with nonsense arguments not grounded in reality. You definitely have an agenda and are WP:NOTHERE I need to step away. Someone else can fight the ignorance for a few days. Lipsquid (talk) 14:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Yep, almost 10 years on wiki, primary author of 37 featured articles and 78 good articles, adminship vote sailed through with minimal opposition... clearly I'm not here to build an encyclopedia, nor do I have any understanding of policy. I have a POV, which is pretty clearly identified on my talk page for all to see, and it has been for years. I do my best to balance that POV with policy, and I think I do a pretty fair job. Ask Tryptofish, who I disagreed with often during a massive overhaul of Creation Museum, which is germane to this very subject. I'm just trying to see that these topics are treated fairly by Wikipedia, although I suspect we disagree on what constitutes "fair". That's what these discussions are for. I will likely be off-wiki this weekend, too, although I'm sure I'll monitor the conversations. Maybe we can establish some consensus on some issues when we both return. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Your past has no bearing on the disservice you are doing now. I am okay with having dual points of view in an article and I don't want to be overly unfair or negative to this topic. Again, look at my edits. Have a nice weekend. Lipsquid (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

What disservice could Acdixon ever be doing here? Once again, I support going back to the previous layout. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

A) agree, I should've included finance in the history section, so I just now moved it. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 22:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

B) please understand that when I moved the sections around, I wasn't throwing rocks at the large amount of excellent text, but instead ONLY trying to regroup and reorder sections. I saw 2 controversy sections (the finance was a mistake) so I wanted to group them together to make it more obvious. Most of the other sections seemed to be history, so I felt they should be subsections in a new history section. The "Visitor experience" seemed to belong better near the top of the article. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 22:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

C) Article before I moved and renamed the sections ---> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ark_Encounter&oldid=729668440

@Sbmeirow: I believe your edits were in good faith. I just knew that if I didn't discuss here before changing it back, I'd probably be reverted and accused of some kind of POV-pushing. I agree with most of what you did. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 00:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Cn in the lead?

I really don't think the citations are needed, at least not for the factual statements in the 1st para. 2nd para, okay, they may be helpful. My suggested version:

• Ark Encounter is a Christian theme park that opened in Grant County, Kentucky on July 7, 2016. The centerpiece of the park is a full-scale model of Noah's Ark from the Genesis flood narrative in the Bible which is 510 feet (160 m) long, 85 feet (26 m) wide, and 81 feet (25 m) high. The park also includes a petting zoo. Ark Encounter is operated by Answers in Genesis (AiG), the Young Earth creationism group that operates the Creation Museum 45 miles (72 km) away in Petersburg, Kentucky.

• After independent feasibility studies projected that park would provide a boon to the state's tourism industry, the Ark Encounter received tax incentives from the city, county, and state to induce its construction, drawing criticism from groups concerned with the separation of church and state. A dispute over AiG's hiring practices was adjudicated in U.S. federal court, which found in 2016 that the organisation could require Ark Encounter employees to sign a statement of faith as a condition of their employment, prompting criticism of the park's discriminatory hiring practices.

K.e.coffman (talk) 02:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

They are not needed in the second paragraph, either. Per WP:WHENNOTCITE, "Citations are often omitted from the lead section of an article, insofar as the lead summarizes information for which sources are given later in the article". We have entire, well-cited sections dedicated to the sentences summarized in the second paragraph, and they should be clear to the reader from the table of contents. Also, we have cites requested for the infobox, and for uncontroversial facts like the park's location and opening date? I've never seen such a thing. The only thing cited in the infobox is the park's slogan, and that's only because it isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article. @Sbmeirow: This is so unusual that I have to ask if you are really serious about this. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 11:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I read WP:WHENNOTCITE but I didn't know it existed, also I'm amazed to see such a thing, since Wikipedia is so into referencing everything. If they "aren't required", then why do a large number of articles have references in their intro? Why should a person have to dig through the article to find references that match up with facts in the intro section? I wasn't meaning to add full references in the intro, but instead use existing references via ref names. Anyway, I'm amazingly amazed. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 12:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm somewhat sympathetic to your "Wikipedia is so into referencing everything" comment, but WP:WHENNOTCITE is really a thing. The only time citations should appear in the lead is for controversial statements. I've written several featured articles, and almost never have I cited something in the lead. It's just one of those things about Wikipedia. If you are satisfied with this explanation, would you kindly remove the unneeded tags from the infobox and lead? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 12:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

sorry, got way too busy in last couple of days, hopefully will have more time in next 1 to 2 days. both of you work things out. going to crash now. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Attendance

Hemant Mehta suggests attendance is well below what the Wikipedia article states he wrote, "There’s a reason Ham didn’t use a picture from Ark Encounter’s actual opening day: The attendance was abysmal. It didn’t meet anyone’s expectations."

See Creationist Ken Ham Caught Misleading People About Ark Encounter’s Attendance on Opening Day. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll be the first to admit that the attendance numbers are going to be a bit squirrelly because only AiG knows for sure what they are (since they are the ones selling the tickets), but are we really going to challenge something reported by the local news with an assertion by an anti-religious blogger on his anti-religious blog (called the Friendly Atheist!) that has a clear and obvious bias against AiG? Can you imagine if this shoe were on the other foot (i.e. the local news was reporting disappointing attendance, but I was trying to cite higher attendance to a blog run by someone like Eric Hovind)? The minute you can tell me there is anyone that contributes to this page that would, under any circumstances, consider allowing me to challenge the news with such a source, then we can talk about this. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 11:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

It's probably best to leave things till we know more. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Visitors were about 30.000 and NBC is reliable. 'Absolutely Wrong': Bill Nye the Science Guy Takes on Noah's Ark Exhibit Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:33, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Attendance will probably fall after the opening when there is less publicity but that can't go into the article till there's a better source. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Hemant Mehta looks confident it's doing badly. Ken Ham Isn’t a Big Bad Ogre: Why I Feel Bad About Ark Encounter Time will tell. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Jerry Coyne also says Ark Encounter is doing badly, see Skimpy attendance at the Ark Park? and According to drone footage, Ken Ham’s ‘Ark Encounter’ is having some attendance problems which may be Coyne's source. There's also Tax Payers Donate $18 Million For Empty Ark Encounter Parking Lot (VIDEO). I haven't seen any Christian sources trying to refute all this. Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

You keep adding these links. Are you proposing some kind of specific edit? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 12:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I want to wait till a source that's reliable by Wikipedia standards says the project is doing badly. I'm adding these links when I find them to keep this section up to date. Is Jerry Coyne reliable enough so we can cite him in the article? Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

@Proxima Centauri: That's not how talk pages work. You don't "keep the article up-to-date" by stashing sources too unreliable for the article on the talk page instead. The talk page is not a forum or a crystal ball where we note all the ways that people who want the park to do badly try to prove that it is. Please discontinue this practice. If you have a reliable source, or if you want to ask about a source, fine.

And regarding Coyne, even he admits in his own article that he used Deadstate's drone footage as a source, that the footage was taken 30 minutes before the park opened, that the footage is "not all that convincing", and that he's "delighted" at the prospect that the park might be doing badly (i.e. he has an extreme bias against the park). So, no, for a myriad of reasons, Coyne is not a reliable source for AE attendance information.

The much-maligned tax incentives for AE are based on its performance. If it doesn't make its performance goals, I'm sure there will be ample reporting on attendance then, as the incentives won't be given. This, BTW, shows why the AmericanNewsX link isn't reliable; their headline gets the facts entirely wrong. AiG has not gotten a single dollar of tax incentives yet. They don't even begin getting the rebates until 2017, and only then if they are meeting the performance goals. Surely we can wait until that time to update attendance numbers. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Proxima Centauri, please stop this nonsense. If we are going to include the alleged low attendance (if that is even the case at all), we are going to need better sources than atheist bloggers and other critics of YEC. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Ken Ham just posted on his facebook page where he states that over the Labor Day weekend there were more that 20,000 combined visitors to the Creation Museum and Ark Encounter. --OtisDixon (talk) 03:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

In this lecture video Ken Ham mentions that since the July 7 opening until yesterday (Sept. 8), about two months, there have been about 212,000 visitors to Ark Encounter. Extrapolation gives about 1,272,000 per year, which is close to projections. --OtisDixon (talk) 02:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, FWIW, it has been reported that attendance at the Ark Encounter has actually exceeded projections so far. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Daily Mail

I've done some trimming of intricate detail, but wanted to post about this one here first. Daily Mail is generally considered non RS, so having it prominently featured in the article diminishes its encyclopedic value. Is there a better source available?

• The Daily Mail called the Ark Encounter "one of the largest green construction projects in the [U.S.]"

References

K.e.coffman (talk) 06:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I am not terribly familiar with the Daily Mail, as it is a British source, and I'm in the US. Can you please elaborate on why it is not a reliable source? I'm not necessarily challenging the assertion; I'd just like some more information. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

It's what we call a tabloid, low quality news reporting, a lot of sensationalism, and in the specific case of the Daily Mail pretty fond of fringe, which is fairly unusual for a newspaper. OK for sports stuff! The current discussion is here. Last December's is here I definitely wouldn't use it for this. As I'm sure someone has said in one of those discussions, if it's true and important there will be much better sources. Doug Weller talk 15:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

The same claim is here. Again, it's a British source – apparently, the Brits are really curious about the ark! :) – so I can't really speak to its reliability as a source. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Looks a bit sketchy, I'm afraid. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

The Metro is a free daily with a lot of local editions. Looks as though their source was AIG. Doug Weller talk 20:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

AiG claims

I do not agree with this revert. These are both rehashing of AiG's claims via press releases: "largest frame" comes from AiG; CBS survey comes from AiG's press release. Yes, this is verifiable information as reported by secondary sources. But they fact that the facts of the claims are verifiable does not mean that the content belongs in an encyclopedia; it's not an indiscriminate collection of information. I believe this material should stay out:

• A press release from Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear's office noted public interest in Noah's Ark, citing a CBS News survey released in November 2009 indicating that 49 percent of respondents were most interested in the ark being the next major archaeological discovery to be announced, ahead of Atlantis with 17 percent.

• While the builders originally planned to hold the ark together with wooden pegs, modern building codes required the builders to use steel fasteners, thus 95 tons of metal plates and bolts were used to connect the wood together. According to AiG, the Ark Encounter is the largest timber frame structure in the United States.

References

Separately, "While the builders originally planned to hold the ark together with wooden pegs..." is intricate detail, since the plans did not come to fruition. It's indiscriminate to include it.

K.e.coffman (talk) 08:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I've responded to the poll bit below. Regarding the "largest timber frame structure" bit, I'm probably not going to fight too hard either way, but we clearly identify that AiG is the source of the claim, and this fact is nearly always referenced in the reliable sources that I have examined regarding Ark Encounter. If we presented this as a fact in Wikipedia's voice, it would be a problem, but if we are simply saying this is how the attraction bills itself, I think it's fine, and even encyclopedic. It's similar, if not totally analogous, to Disneyland billing itself as "the happiest place on Earth".

Regarding the bit about planning an entirely wooden structure, I strongly feel that should stay. The builders had wanted to build the attraction, as much as possible, using the techniques in use at the period in history that they estimate the ark would have been built. If their goal is to show the feasibility of constructing the ark, this is important. The reader should know why this plan could not be carried out. BTW, this was reported in a reliable source (the Lexington Herald-Leader).

Finally, I would like to ask that you post here to start discussion before deleting large portions of information, as you did with this edit. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. We now have reliable, third-party sources reporting AiG's claim that it is the largest timber frame structure, so there is no legitimate reason to remove it anymore. --1990'sguy (talk) 07:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The fact that "reliable, third-party sources [are] reporting AiG's claim" does not make it less of a claim, which I'm not sure that Wikipedia should be reproducing. This may be the case of WP:Undue and / or WP:NOTNEWS. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Poll

This was a web poll[7] - the questions are here. Thus it's self-selected. Just out of curiousity, can anyone remember another recent debate over a similar poll, ie one where the respondents chose to respond rather than a proper poll? I know we decided not to use it. Doug Weller talk 11:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Given this information, which I was not aware of, I'd be OK with deleting the poll. A web poll is definitely of extremely limited utility. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Colorado Timberframe

I don't necessarily agree with this revert. The firm itself is not notable as there's no article. Further, the statement is weakly sourced to a what appears to be a local newspaper (goshennews.com), so the statement about "the only company" may be just a claim.

• Colorado Timberframe was contracted to mill the logs, some of which were as long as 50 feet (15 m) long and 36 inches (91 cm) in diameter, because they were the only company in the United States capable of milling logs of this size to specifications within 1/32 of an inch.

References

My proposed version was both shorter and more encyclopedic, avoiding unnecessary detail:

The framing of the ark consists mostly of Englemann spruce, while the exterior is made of pine. Some of the logs were as long as 50 feet (15 m) long and 36 inches (91 cm) in diameter.

References

Thoughts on this? K.e.coffman (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, as the person who make the revert, I disagree. The claim is cited to a reliable source, and to me, doesn't seem all that difficult to believe. The company doesn't have to be notable enough to have its own article to be mentioned in another article. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Why should this be in the article? I can see a reason for the type of wood beig mentioned, but the companies involved in building it? I don't really think so. Doug Weller talk 18:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with DW; this goes to the point of intricate detail I've been consistently making on this article, as well as the Creation Museum. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I support this remaining in the article. The article states that this company was involved in the project because "the only company in the United States capable of milling logs of this size to specifications within 1/32 of an inch." It doesn't seem to be intricate detail to me. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

How is that encyclopedic? Do we add every company who has contributed to Ark Encounter and makes a unique product? Doug Weller talk 20:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Is it wrong/unencyclopedic to mention any companies that are involved in this project (or any in general)? As mentioned, the company here was chosen because they were the only ones who could meet Ark Encounter's requirements. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@1990's guy: there's a consensus to keep this out, as at least three editors have expressed the opinion that this should come up. This is an intricate detail per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

And two editors, including myself, think it would be better to keep this. Three vs two is not a consensus. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: Would you please show me where exactly in WP:NOTEVERYTHING that it states that information like this is inappropriate? --1990'sguy (talk) 22:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Who cares who milled the logs? Should we also include who made the nails? Who made the metal substructure? Who poured the concrete foundation? What about the people who made the varnish? Surely they have custom cleaning products... Come on, be reasonable. People gave in on the dimensions in the lead which is more silly intricate details. Lipsquid (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

This is clearly intricate detail; the firm itself is not notable, so there's no point in providing this information. It's indiscriminate to include this claim which may or may not be real. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

It has already been pointed out that this fact is cited to a reliable source. Do you seriously not believe it? Also, you didn't answer my question. How does including this violate WP:NOTEVERYTHING? How is including this specific company in this specific context (as opposed to everyone involved) intricate detail? --1990'sguy (talk) 22:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Because it would be indiscriminate. Specific intricate details:

• name of the firm -- non notable firm with no informative value for the reader
• the claim that is supposedly the only one that was capable of such work -- (1) so what? (2) this is cited to a what appears to be a local newspaper.
• logs milled to a certain specification -- so what?

K.e.coffman (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. However, how is a local newspaper not a reliable source for this (or anything, really)? I don't understand. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Newspapers are the lower rung of the reliability -- especially local. Do they have time and money to fact check everything? They may be parroting what the firm in question told them. Please demonstrate that this claim is in indeed fact. This is extraordinary claim, and should be supported by multiple sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Would you please self revert now? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Sure. Done. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Boy, I needed a break from this over the weekend. I still disagree with the line of thought here. I went to the list of good articles about amusement park attractions, which is what the ark is... an attraction (the main one) at the Ark Encounter. I got about halfway through the "D"s before I stopped. Every one named the manufacturer in the lead. Not just in the body – in the lead. When you are writing about an attraction, it is not indiscriminate to say who built it. Conceded: 1) all of the comparable articles I looked at are about roller coasters, but there really is no comparable attraction to the ark, from what I can tell; and 2) all of the roller coaster manufacturers have their own articles. This still does not change my opinion that the manufacturer/builder of an attraction is not indiscriminate information. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Are there any other sources that state this fact? As we can obviously see above, one of the big reasons against including this was because the source was a local newspaper. If there are any other sources, I will again support including this. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

How about The Sacramento Bee? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

That is a syndicated article, "BY MARY MEEHAN mmeehan1@herald-leader.com" Lipsquid (talk) 14:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

So what's wrong with it then? --1990'sguy (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Sigh, it is the same article, word for word. It doesn't matter anyway, it is intricate detail and not notable. Lipsquid (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

It is not the same article, word-for-word, as the one in the Goshen News. Even being syndicated from the Lexington Herald-Leader, it's not like that's a small-town, unreliable paper. You find it to be intricate detail, and I disagree. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

You guys are killing me, you can't even keep your own arguments straight. The Goshen News article does not mention Colorado Timberframe. Lipsquid (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I was going on K.e. coffman's original post about what he changed, where he neglected to include both citations that went with the original sentence. Further, his original post said the fact was cited to the Goshen News. (And I quote, "Further, the statement is weakly sourced to a what appears to be a local newspaper (goshennews.com), so the statement about 'the only company' may be just a claim." Perhaps K.e. coffman should be included in the "you guys" who are killing you.) Even further, his link to the revert he disagreed with seems to be incorrect; I had to go back in the article history to find the edit in question and learn that there was a second reference to which the Colorado Timberframe claim was cited. So technically, I didn't have my argument straight, but I wasn't the only one. All of that is almost irrelevant to this argument, except your condescending tone – which is neither appreciated nor appropriate – made me feel the need to point it out.

What is relevant is that the proper source, on further examination, is the Lexington Herald-Leader, which is a local paper, yes, but a paper for a metropolitan area and the second-largest city in the state. It is not resource-poor for fact-checking. As for intricate detail – which again, there is no policy against – I stand by my assertion that mentioning the builder of an attraction is not indiscriminate information in an article about the attraction, regardless of the builder's inherent notability. Further, the fact, cited to a reliable source, that it is the only builder in the country capable of building such an attraction adds to the fact's noteworthiness. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Intricate detail is right; this is indiscriminate amount of information. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Acdixon. This is not intricate detail. It's a pretty big deal if you're the only company in the U.S. that is qualified to meet Ark Encounter's standards. I removed that sentence because the source that was used at first seemed questionable. Now that we have a better source, I think it is clear that this should stay in the article. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Yesterday, The Denver Post published this, with a similar claim: "Part of the reason Colorado Timberframe won the bid for the project was because it is one of only a few companies in North America to have a machine big enough to work with the large materials." We now have two reliable sources reporting essentially the same thing. I continue to advocate for the inclusion of this material. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

And if we now have two reliable sources stating this, then I also support reinserting this info. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually you don't, this source says "Part of the reason Colorado Timberframe won the bid for the project was because it is one of only a few companies in North America to have a machine big enough to work with the large materials" which makes it less notable as they are not the "only company capable" of working with the lumber as stated in the first article and in previous edits. It actually proves the reasoning that it was kept out of the article in the first place as the Kentucky Whatever newspaper did a poor job fact checking and had incorrect statements. Lipsquid (talk) 15:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Nobody said they were "the only company capable". The Lexington Herald-Leader (the one you deride as "Kentucky Whatever") said they were the only company in the United States capable of doing the work. The Denver Post said they are one of only a few in North America capable of doing the work. That's still logically consistent. They could be the only one in the United States and one of only a few in North America – the others would presumably be in Canada, or less likely, Mexico and Central America. This is also why I said the Post made a similar claim, not the same claim. I don't care which way we include it in the article ("the only one in the United States" vs. "one of only a few in North America"), but I still think it belongs. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

No, actually they did use the exact words "only company capable", but you have a reasonable argument with the differences in wording, though your conclusions about North America, Mexico and the US are WP:OR unless you have a source. Lipsquid (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Who is the "they" who used the unqualified phrase "the only company"? Quoting from the Herald-Leader article in question: "Only one place in the United States was capable of doing the milling work for the ark because of the size of the logs. It was Colorado Timberframe." (emphasis mine) Quoting from the reverted revision: "Colorado Timberframe was contracted to mill the logs, some of which were as long as 50 feet (15 m) long and 36 inches (91 cm) in diameter, because they were the only company in the United States capable of milling logs of this size to specifications within 1/32 of an inch." (again, emphasis mine). Quoting from The Denver Post: "Part of the reason Colorado Timberframe won the bid for the project was because it is one of only a few companies in North America to have a machine big enough to work with the large materials." (yep, emphasis mine.) My example about firms in Canada and such is not a claim of fact; it is simply an illustration to say that it is plausible for both the Herald-Leader claim that CT is the only company in the U.S. and the Denver Post claim that CT is one of a few in North America capable of doing the work can be logically consistent and correct. Again, if we want to stick with the Post's language ("one of only a few in North America"), fine, but don't act like the Post proves the Herald-Leader got it wrong. It doesn't. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I have zero interest in arguing, you have 2 sources that make 2 different statements. I copied the statements from your own words, I did not read the Kentucky newspaper. Any speculation you can do to correct the inconsistency is WP:OR until you have it sourced. The fact that CT is one of many who can perform this work, makes it even less notable (and I thought it was not notable and minutiae before), so this isn't helping your case. Any other positions you assign to me other than what I stated is.... not my position. Lipsquid (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Then let me ask: Is your position simply "this is intricate detail"? If so, why the shot at the Herald-Leader (i.e. "the Kentucky Whatever newspaper did a poor job fact checking and had incorrect statements")? As I said, you have not demonstrated that the Herald-Leader did a poor job fact checking nor that it had false statements, but if your primary argument is that this is intricate detail (essentially the "nobody cares" argument), then that's not really demonstrable either way. Resolving it would probably take an RfC. I can't prove it isn't unnecessary detail, and you can't prove that it is. The sidebar about the reliability of the Herald-Leader was just a red herring in that case, one that you threw out. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 11:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

This discussion would be more profitable if CT had an article. Otherwise, “one of the few companies capable in North America” is an imprecise statement and intricate detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Again, CT does not need a Wikipedia article to make it worthy of mention in this article. Non-notable people and companies are mentioned in articles all the time because of their connection to the subject of the article. The builder of an attraction is notable to mention in an article about the attraction. The fact that they are one of the few companies even capable of building the attraction only reinforces that, even though it obviously doesn't make them notable enough for their own article. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

It's been two weeks with no discussion or action on this. If this continues, I will reinsert this info. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Image border

Would someone remove the border around the infobox image? I tried to remove it, but was unsuccessful. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Done Lipsquid (talk) 17:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Cubits

@Isambard Kingdom and 1990'sguy: Regarding this and subsequent edits, the original sentence said something to the effect that AiG researchers identified 12 different possible lengths for the cubit. Some editors here are absolutely allergic to allowing anything AiG says directly into the article, so it was changed to say "There are 12 different possible lengths for the cubit". I suspect there are more than 12 possible lengths. The cited source says AiG considered 12 possible lengths, and I still support that wording. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

This also follows into the next section, but AiG is not a reliable source of anything scientific or historical as a fringe and small minority view. Anything they say about either subject could have an issue with undue, unless it was also in reputable sources. Lipsquid (talk) 21:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

But the source says that AiG identified 12 different possible lengths. Isn't AiG a reliable source for what AiG did? Also, the source that is cited is USA Today. Is that not a reputable source? --1990'sguy (talk) 13:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

AiG can be, yes, a source for what AiG did (though other sources might be considered as well). But I would be very surprised if there are just 12 different definitions of a cubit, a primitive unit of length. This is why I made the edits: [8] and [9]. I was simply trying to correct a sentence that, as written, did not seem correct. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The sentence does not necessarily imply that there are only 12 different cubit lengths. The sentence does say that AiG identified 12 different lengths, which may or may not be to total number of actual different lengths. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The sentence read, literally, "There are 12 different possible lengths for the biblical cubit ...". That is a very suspicious sentence. So I fixed it. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I was speaking about the original wording, where it said that AiG identified 12 different measurements, not the wording that you changed. Sorry for the misunderstanding. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

So, to clarify, I support changing back to the original ("AiG researchers identified...") wording. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Using AiG sources about AiG

I looked around in other topics on WP and found this:

Undue weight: “Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.” And, “Theories and viewpoints held by a minority should not receive as much attention as the majority view, and views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.... Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them… But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it should not be represented as the truth.”

This article is about a single minor viewpoint, so the concern of due or undue weight seems not so important here.

Reliable Sources: “Questionable sources should only be used as sources for material on themselves, such as in articles about themselves”… “ “Questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field.”

So, according to this policy, it is acceptable to use AiG sources to provide information about AiG. --OtisDixon (talk) 19:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

It is a slippery slope. AiG is not a reliable source of anything scientific or historical as a minority view. Anything they say about either subject could have an issue with undue, unless it was also in reputable sources due to the fringe views they propose. That said, there is nothing wrong with using AiG as a source about features of the attraction, plans, leadership, funding, all of the non-science and non-history subjects should be fine. Even though their science views are insane, we have to act like the insanity doesn't affect other portions of their judgement. I know, but that is what we are supposed to do.Lipsquid (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that one cannot use AiG as a source on any WP page on a scientific topic. However, it seems that stating their position on their page about some scientific topic, prefaced with "AiG states ....", would be allowed. --OtisDixon (talk) 21:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe, but only if we have good sources discussing AIG and that position, not isolated statements. Do you have an example? Doug Weller talk 05:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean? who's "good sources"? I guess is my question...... --OtisDixon (talk) 07:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

"The Obsession With Biblical Literalism" - except when it comes to the AE

"For self-proclaimed literalists, the ark includes a striking amount of fabrications and fictionalizations. Consider, for example, one of the most popular exhibits, where visitors can walk through the family’s living quarters. At the entrance are two placards, one entitled “Artistic License,” and the other “Why Are the Living Quarters So Nice?” In each of the following rooms, visitors can see mannequin renderings of the family and read short bios. Take Ham’s wife Kezia, who likes “dressing up and looking her best, although the Ark’s busy schedule provides few opportunities for this.” But none of these details appear in the Bible." "On AiG’s blog, Simon Turpin equates literalism with “plain reading” and “natural interpretation,” suggesting that anyone with common sense will read the Bible as they do. But as Ark Encounter reveals, this apparent simplicity demands endless fabrication. The park plans to build a pre-flood walled city, a first century village, a “journey in history from Abraham to the parting of the Red Sea,” and even the Tower of Babel"Atlantic Monthly. Doug Weller talk 10:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Again, are you proposing something specific here? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 12:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Again? I'm certainly suggesting that the article is a good source for this article. I do think these clearly fictional additions to the story are worthwhile adding. This is going beyond biblical literalism into making things up. Doug Weller talk 12:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

"Again" was a reference to a similar comment I made this morning immediately before this one in the Attendance discussion above. I now notice that was a different editor, so my apologies. And I don't dispute that this is a reliable enough source to add. I am asking what, specifically, you want to add to the article. No one, even AiG itself, is arguing that there is biblical support for some of the things mentioned in the Atlantic's article. They acknowledge that they are taking some artistic license to make the experience more immersive. Pretty sure I read Patrick Marsh interviewed somewhat extensively on this point somewhere recently. So I'm not arguing that this should not be included. I'm just asking how you propose to include it. As you know, that is often where the contention starts. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

In this Facebook video the men who developed the displays for the Ark Encounter spend over an hour explaining why they did what they did for the displays on the Ark and especially their use of artistic licence. They point out two placks posted in the Ark which explain their use of artistic licence. --OtisDixon (talk) 02:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, in this article, AiG explains why they did what they did. Also, notice the multiple signs in the exhibits explaining to the public that they took artistic license. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

"Contrary to many people's intuition"

This is a wholly unsourced and editorializing comment embedded in the explanation. It is unnecessary and insults the reader's intelligence. It is not in compliance with the neutral point of view policy and has been removed. 72.201.104.140 (talk) 02:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree, it doesn't belong there. Certainly not without perhaps a quote. Doug Weller talk 08:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Christian fundamentalism -> Evangelicalism

I have noticed this recent change in the lead. The source that immediately follows also mentions evangelical while not mentioning fundamentalism, so the change appears justified. However, various evangelicalism movements also imply Biblical literalism, which itself is a hallmark of fundamentalism. But we have another source with a quote already mentioning it ("a fundamental shift [...]"). I'm not sure if it also should be in the lead. The WP:RNPOV and WP:LABEL warn about the use of the fundamentalist label, but mention that it is appropriate in the proper context. —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 20:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

We could use both ("evangelical fundumentalist"). AiG and the Ark Encounter are definately evengelical (having a focus on the gospel, which AiG strongly emphasizes), and although the word "fundumentalist" is often thrown around as a meaningless slur word, in an objective sense (holding to the fundumentals of Christianity, high view of Scripture) it is fundumentalist. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

More holding to a particular view of the fundamentals of Christianity. Other Christians think they hold to the fundamentals but disagree with AIG.'s views. Almost all have a high view of scripture without takinfpg it literally. . Doug Weller talk 20:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

A discussion on the different theological views of Christianity is a different dicussion and besides the point. Bottom line, I think both terms (evangelical and fundumentalist) should be used. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. It's true that each literalist group still interprets the texts to form its own doctrines. Hmm so I thought about replacing the link to Christian evangelical fundamentalist but I have the impression that it's not enough: this subsection is a wide generalization which is not necessarily on the topic of literalism or origin myths (although it mentions inerrancy). Then I looked at the Answers in Genesis and Ken Ham articles where fundamentalist is used and have looked at the immediate sources, and come to the realization that we may need to also support those with another source (I've not found what seems an ideal one with the "perfect quote" to use, that is directly about Ken Ham or those organizations, this may need some time or assistance to find and select; although it's not impossible that I simply overlooked). —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 23:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• @1990'sguy:: Don't let my thread stop you from restoring the label if you wish, we'll see if it gets reverted again, I guess. My only concern is that with an ideal citation that is well placed, someone who wants to remove it in the future would also need to contest the source. Without such a source someone could argue that it's an editor's opinion, but we know that the label is justified and could probably eventually support it better with a relevant source... —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 09:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I have re-added "fundamentalist" with a source. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it's a great choice. The article is short and mentions Christian fundamentalism in a way that is very easy to find in its text. —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 14:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

There might be a confusion about the meaning of Christian fundamentalism. According to the relevant article, the term was coined in the 1920s as a label for a conservative Protestant movement established in 19th century which stood opposed to then-modern ideas about theology and science. The label was proudly adopted by organizations such as the Independent Baptist and the Independent Fundamental Churches of America.

The term went on to become synonymous with religious extremism, and came to apply to other (unrelated) Christian conservatives, reactionaries, and anti-intellectuals. The term has become pejorative and used to label perceived fanatics.

Evangelicalism refers to a Protestant movement established in the 18th century, with an emphasis on "preaching and social action". Modern Evangelicals have spread in several countries, often differ in religious and political ideas, and a rising influence in other versions of Christianity. Self-labeled Evangelicals are estimated to 285 million people, with other 584 million associated with Evangelical-inspired groups. Dimadick (talk) 22:43, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

While I have no problem using the word "fundamentalist" to objectively define theologically conservative Christians like AiG (as well as "evangelical"), I do know the word is usually thrown around as a pejorative slur word to insult those very same Christians. In that case, it might be worth considering removing it. I personally don't see the term as offensive or pejorative, but I'm probably in the minority. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

The theme park promotes pseudoscientific theories, yet it was never mentioned on the article, so I added it to the article. I see no legitimate reason for removing it. If anything, omitting it is dangerous and does a disservice to Wikipedia. I'm pinging Tryptofish, as it's the only user I know with experience on how to deal with pseudoscience on Wikipedia. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:09, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, is there some place on Wikipedia where one can go to resolve issues concerning pseudoscience? I keep pinging this one user all the time when there's probably a better way with this. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard, there also are established sanctions (WP:PSCI WP:ARBPS) which I think can be enforced at WP:AE. I'm not sure the dispute is at this level (AE), as that's an administrator noticeboard. Also, maybe others can confirm, but I'm not really sure if those sanctions apply to this article which is more about religion, although it also touches pseudoscience... —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 15:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

But I think discussing it here (and as necessary querying third opinion (WP:3O or WP:RfC)) are also good first options. —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 15:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, you calling the omission of "pseudoscience" in this article "dangerous" and making this article a YEC promotional peice[10] only shows your POV. Frankly, I'm tired of seeing editors adding info like this, thinking they are on a mission to fight pseudoscience. If you want to do that, go to RationalWiki. Don't do it here. Readers don't need such in-your-face edits to form the same conclusions as you. I don't think this article will affect any of their opinions anyway. We should stick to presenting this article in an NPOV, and I don't think your edit accomplishes this, especially considering your edit summaries and rationale. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm responding to the ping. I've avoided editing this page, because there's a limit to the number of pages I can keep track of. But I have long edited the closely related page on the Creation Museum, where there has been a longstanding consensus that the word "pseudoscience" should and must be used. In my opinion, it is necessary to say so here as well, but there is no need to devote an entire sentence to it. I recommend using wording similar to the second sentence of the lead at Creation Museum, where the word is used as a descriptor along with YEC. I say this as someone who has fought very hard to preserve AIG's perspective at the other page, so I am not on any mission against AIG here. But I also believe in policy, and failing to describe YEC as pseudoscience is patently unencylopedic. Just keep it brief.

I'm happy to respond to the ping. As for other procedural options, probably the best would be to open an RfC if editors cannot reach consensus here, although posting at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard would work too (I just find content noticeboards to generate a lot of tl;dr much of the time). The worst solution is to edit war over it, which is what I see in the page history. Please note that, to the extent that this page does deal with pseudoscience, any editing or discussion of pseudoscience falls under the Discretionary Sanctions issued by ArbCom, and in part that means no edit warring. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks, Tryptofish. I'm personally satified with the new and current sentence (quoting it, for archives, although omitting imbedded references for convenience): "It is operated by Answers in Genesis (AiG), a group that promotes pseudoscientific young Earth creationist beliefs there, as well as at the Creation Museum 45 miles (70 km) away in Petersburg, Kentucky". Is this also fine for you, Snooganssnoogans? Thanks, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 01:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Of course, it is OK to ask the editor who is on a mission to fight pseudoscience what they think of the change, but not the one trying to keep Wikipedia from becoming RationalWiki, which does not adhere to NPOV. But, I'm not going to fight this. It's a terrible change, but it's better than what existed prior. And it appears to be the consensus. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Have you read what Tryptofish wrote here? I think that the current sentence mentioning pseudoscience is a good compromise. We do mention the fact, yet we no longer devote a full sentence to it (which was Snooganssnoogans's edit), which is why I asked. Do you mean that we should not mention at all that it promotes pseudoscience? —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 02:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I just think many editors go out of their way to add things like this. I have been editing for several years, and this is probably the umpteenth time I have experienced something like this, where editors add "pseudoscience" for the upfront reason of fighting pseudoscience. And as I said above, this is better than the former version. Much better, actually. But do I think we have to label YEC pseudoscience whenever we mention it? No, I do not think it necessary or beneficial. It's an overreaction at the least. But it is the consensus, and I will respect it. I do see that you and Tryptofish are good editors acting in good faith to resolve this dispute, so I apologize for my post above. I've been in these disputes before, and it's annoying to see editors applying RW standards here. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I understand. Thanks, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 03:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit

• Keep in the article. But of course. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment -- I found the original version by Snooganssnoogans to be superior. It's more straightforward & without the two 'scare' citations after "pseudoscientific": diff]. Prior version:

• It is operated by Answers in Genesis (AiG), a group that promotes pseudoscientific[3][4] young Earth creationist beliefs there, as well as at the Creation Museum 45 miles (70 km) away in Petersburg, Kentucky.[2] ...

Now

• Ark Encounter is operated by Answers in Genesis (AiG), a Young Earth creationism group that operates the Creation Museum 45 miles (70 km) away in Petersburg, Kentucky.[2] The theme park promotes pseudoscientific theories.[4][5]

K.e.coffman (talk) 03:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I like it; considering the lengthy sentence, this may be cleaner, and it is short. —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 03:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

The credit goes to Snooganssnoogans; I just used their version :-) . K.e.coffman (talk) 05:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this is cleaner. Neutrality^talk 06:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I am fine with both my and Tryptofish's version. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I really do not care which version is used, and I was just trying to help. About the comments that I might have some sort of anti-YEC predisposition, anyone who cares to can look at the archives of Talk:Creation Museum, and particularly look at the discussions between K.e.coffman and me, and decide for yourselves whether or not I am inclined to portray AiG in a negative light (hint: I'm not). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

In case you are referring to me, I did not say you had such a disposition. In fact, I said quite the opposite above. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I was looking at the change more from a readability standpoint. I'm glad everyone agrees; that's quite rare these days. :-) Thanks for the collegiate discussion! K.e.coffman (talk) 04:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Another edit 1 Aug

An IP editor wrote "supernatural". I turned it around, figuring that the current wording is the least objectionable to the most people. If anyone wants to engage in conversation and accept it, have at it. I'm not interested. (I don't know how to capture a change and cite it.) Rhadow (talk) 01:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Chamber of Commerce

What is the purpose of parenthetically noting that the Ark Encounter is a member of the Grant County Chamber of Commerce? Membership in the Chamber of Commerce doesn't strike me as independently notable, and it really adversely affects the flow of the sentence. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

A fair question. My motivation was to provide enough inline information for the reader to judge for themselves the neutrality of Jamie Baker's position. I imply no dishonesty here - she's doing her job. It is in the interests of the organization she represents, its individual members, and the economy which supports those businesses, that she should present those businesses as positively as possible. If the GCCC had a constitution or mission statement (I can find neither) I would expect it to say something along those lines. That certainly includes relaying information that any member provides on trust and without question, which must be the foundation of her statement that 'the Ark did exactly what it said it would do'.Aunk05 (talk) 12:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

This is a textbook example of WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. ... If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here." You have combined the information from the WDRB source with information from the Grant County Chamber of Commerce to reach (and help other readers reach) your implied conclusion, explicitly stated here, that "That certainly includes relaying information that any member provides on trust and without question, which must be the foundation of her statement that 'the Ark did exactly what it said it would do'." (Emphasis mine.) The WDRB source makes no such implication; in fact, it provides an example of a local business owner making a significant investment in expansion that seems to support the idea that the Ark has indeed delivered additional tourism and that Baker is not simply parroting Ark Encounter talking points. I will now remove the offending parenthetical to make the article both more readable and more neutral. Please do not re-add it without first attempting to demonstrate that this is not a violation of SYNTH. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I support Acdixon's edit. If one source gave both facts, then it might be OK to include it, but the way it just was violates WP:SYNTH. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

First paragraph of Attendance section

I believe the first paragraph of the Attendance section needs work. I'm pasting it here for reference, in case it is changed later.

Soon after the opening of the Ark Encounter in July 2016, various websites alleged that attendance levels at the attraction were far below expected levels. In mid-September 2016, it was reported that about 300,000 people visited the attraction in its first nine weeks, with about 95 percent of them coming from outside the vicinity, exceeding projections. By late October 2016, over 400,000 people visited the attraction, continuing to exceed projections. This is in contrast to a state study that estimated, in two scenarios, the attraction would receive 325,000 or 500,000 visitors in the first year.

• First of all, "various websites" is weasel wording. The sites referenced are DeadState.org, which I know little about, and an atheist blog. I don't believe either should be considered a reliable source for attendance at the Ark Encounter, especially since...
• The sum total of the evidence proffered by DeadState is drone footage posted on Facebook of the Ark Encounter's mostly empty parking lot taken one day about 30 minutes prior to the park's opening. This falls far short of the standard for a reliable source.
• The other article at least cites a reliable source for attendance, but it misrepresents the information. The author calculates that the average daily attendance for the Ark Encounter was 5,000 people and contends that this will put the attraction short of the 2 million projected visitors. Objectively, this statement is true. An average of 5,000 visitors over 363 days in a year (excepting Christmas and Thanksgiving, when the park is closed) would yield just over 1.8 million people. Short of the projection, but not far short as our article alleges. The blog author relies on speculation about the attendance dropping off after opening week to conclude that attendance will fall "far short", but we cannot use that as a basis for the article's assertion. Further, while NBC reported that Ham "hopes" to attract 2 million people, the projections initially offered to the state by AiG predicted 1.6 million, the state commissioned study by Hunden projected 1.4 million, and the third study, necessitated by construction delays, projected 400,000. Given the numbers reported so far by AiG, they've already exceeded the 400,000, and although they may be on pace to miss the earlier, higher estimates, they still won't miss them far.

Given these two points, I think the first sentence should be eliminated as weaselly, poorly sourced, and in any case, outdated. The rest of the paragraph is awkwardly worded, as it has been built up from various sources as they are published. The simplest way to clean this up, I think, is to eliminate all old reports and stick with only the most recent numbers available. In late February, Ark Encounter officials told a local news station that attendance was at 675,000 since opening. That's the latest number I could find. This press release from AiG, published by the Knoxville Daily Sun in April, says AiG believes the attraction is still on track to hit 1.4 million visitors in its first year of operation. As AiG is likely the only possible source for attendance numbers, I think we should report these, noting of course, that they are self-reported. I would expect updates around the one-year mark in July, perhaps even from the state, which will have to verify the attendance numbers in order to allow the attraction to claim its tax exemptions. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Acdixon: I was the editor who added the info. I did not add the info to make a factual statement about the A.E.'s attendance, but rather the fact that rumors of low attendance were being circulated after the Ark's opening. I heard a lot about these rumors in the first couple months of the A.E.'s opening, so I thought it appropriate to document this, even though I do admit the sourcing was not the best. I think it's clear that their claims were false and deceptive. Hopefully more reliable sources regarding this exist. I don't mind removing the older attendance estimates. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@1990'sguy: I don't think the rumors of low attendance – especially being that they turned out to be false – are of any lasting encyclopedic value. To borrow some jargon from the younger generation, "Haters gonna hate". This is no surprise to anyone. I'm still inclined to remove it. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Acdixon: I won't object, then. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I wish the Wikipedia hadn't acquiesced to a Creationist point-of-view on this discussion, as it was quite correct to point out how badly the "Ark Encounter" was failing and not living up to the revenue potential promised by its creator. Ark Encounter hasn’t spurred nearby economy. Even Ken Ham himself sees the park failure, and blames it on atheists. TheValeyard (talk) 00:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't object to the recent additions about the new attendance numbers, but was also surprised to see the initial report be removed... —PaleoNeonate - 02:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: Acdixon removed what I was talking about, not 1990'sguy. I also have no reason to think this was wrongly intended, but it's always nice to discuss and explain on the talk page when it's questioned or contentious. Also, answersingenesis is not a reliable source, but we can use such sources about self-reported numbers (it may be good to specify they are self-reported). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 03:13, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate and TheValeyard: My edit removed a single sentence – "The next day, Grant County Judge Executive Stephen P. Wood was reported to say that the Ark Encounter had 'not brought [the county] any money'. – which recent reporting has rendered demonstrably false. Linda Blackford's article in the Herald-Leader detailed how that the attraction has generated some money for the county, including a substantial increase in tax revenue for local schools. Whether it was as much as expected, hoped for, etc. is irrelevant. Judge Wood's statement is false. I should not have to explain myself on the talk page before removing a false statement and replacing it with more accurate information. You'll notice that I didn't remove Judge Wood's negative view of the Ark, adding instead that he felt it was a "bad deal for taxpayers". I simply got rid of his inaccurate statement and replaced it with a more accurate one. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@TheValeyard: Only reliable and neutral sources are being cited that report about officials saying the A.E. is improving the economy. There is no acquescing to "a Creationist point-of-view" here. You cited an editorial and an opinionated blog. In addition, we already have much info about officials stating the Ark was a failure -- much better than the unreliable athiest blogs claiming low attendence that were removed. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:45, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Typical that the source is attacked when ignoring the substance. Local businesses are not reaping the promised windfalls, and the Creator (pun intended) is making complaints about atheists ruining his business. Factual statements, both. TheValeyard (talk) 02:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

But we already include a lot of information, reliably sourced that is in line with the information you provided (I am avoiding arguing the substance of the sources you provided because that is beside the point; the sources you cited do not meet WP standards for inclusion regardless of factuality). And there happen to be reliable sources that take a different stance. I see zero problems with our coverage of the A.E.'s attendance. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@TheValeyard: OK, let's talk about the substance of the source, then. Did you notice that all but one paragraph of the Richmond Register article you cited as "evidence" that the Ark has failed is directly lifted from Linda Blackford's article that is already cited multiple times in the attendance section? The problem is, the Register piece cherry picks its facts to make the situation look worse, leading to the conclusion they wanted. Blackford's gives the more holistic view, noting how the local business owners quoted blamed lack of signage and tourist infrastructure for holding back their business. Dry Ridge, which has more of both, has seen a tremendous uptick in hotel occupancy as a result of the Ark. Even Blackford's article is guilty of cherry picking, though. The owner of Shem's Snack Shack told Ken Ham and Linda Blackford that his three-month shutdown this winter was due to sewer repairs, not slow business, a fact Blackford chose to omit. As for the atheist blog you cited, it most definitely does not demonstrate that Ham believes the Ark itself is a failure. Ham does concede that some cities – like Williamstown – have not yet seen the revenue they had hoped for – although Dry Ridge and Northern Kentucky generally have, as demonstrated by the hard numbers reported by the NKY Chamber of Commerce and their recognition of AiG with a tourism award for bringing additional visitors and money to the area. (Maybe the Chamber is filled with rabid creationists, but I doubt it.) Ham, Grant County Chamber president Jaime Baker, and several of the business owners quoted in Blackford's piece agree that Williamstown's limited infrastructure is hampering its ability to capitalize on the nearly 1 million visitors who have visited the Ark so far. Ham additionally makes the case that the half-truths that some in the media have put out have dissuaded folks from investing in that infrastructure, but that's just his opinion, which is why it doesn't appear in our article. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

So I read [11] that was linked from [12]. There seems to be no plausible argument of failure (or of critical success). There are small businesses who say that the Ark brings them a little more revenue (i.e. 20%), others say it doesn't, one is closing, some hope that it will bring more success in the future, etc. It also reports about tax incentives, 30 years, etc. It may be a good example of mixed reports (which is also what this article has seen so far)... Apparently more information may be available in August. —PaleoNeonate - 02:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Controversies

Just a drive-by observation: it seems surprising the controversies over the approach taken by The Ark, and serious accusations of indoctrination are lost within the sub-section entitled 'Opening'. Whilst demonstrations and disagreements of opinion clearly took place on the theme park's opening day, would it not be more appropriate to regard these serious issues as ongoing concerns, and include them alongside 'tax incentives' and 'hiring practices' in the 'controversies' section? Nick Moyes (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

This has to do more with criticism than controversy. This example you are mentioning is quite different from the tax incentives or hiring practices, which had legal/constitutional connotations. The info in the "Opening" section is about people who simply and blatantly don't like the Ark Encounter and are criticizing it. I think the way you worded it ("serious accusations of indoctrination") makes it seem more serious than it actually is. AiG and the Ark Encounter promotes a certain pov, like many other organizations of all views, and people criticize them for what they promote. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Sale in June 2017

I added a citation from the Lexington Herald Leader, fully documented in Ark_Encounter#Subsequent_events. A few minutes later an IP editor added the same information in the lede. The citation was from International Business Times published on Yahoo! If this is a notable event, it deserves a new section and some scholarly attention. No point in having the same event described twice. Undoubtedly there will be lawsuits to follow. Rhadow (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I combined the two mentions. This sale just happened. Placing it in the intro before any lawsuit even happened would violate WP:UNDUE. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

1990'sguy I moved another paragraph describing the sale to the Sale section. The information about property valuation is unsubstantiated by the citation. I'll look for a better source. Rhadow (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I really don't think this needs to be its own section. It is eminently related to the tax incentives that already have their own section. Why not just incorporate the information there? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I support Acdixon's suggestion -- it makes the most sense, considering that this sale is inherently connected to te tax incentives issue. Acdixon, go for it! :) --1990'sguy (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, 1990'sguy and Acdixon. The question is one of organization (a) by topic: tax and employment or (b) chronologically. There are two chapters in this story: the rise, build and opening -- and the second chapter. Rhadow (talk) 21:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Rhadow, you have a good point, but the tax incentive section is also organized chronologically, specifically referring to the controversy regarding tax incentives. It seems to me that the recent sale is more appropriately added there because of that. However, maybe we could mention it in both locations? Briefly in the "History" section and maybe a more detailed mention in the tax incentives section? --1990'sguy (talk) 22:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Rhadow and 1990'sguy: Further, with the very recent (as of this posting) news that the land has been transferred back to Ark Encounter, LLC from Crosswater Canyon, it seems this event will be little more than a blip in the continuing saga of tax incentives for the Ark Encounter and will not justify its own section within the article. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 23:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I think Acdixon has a point on this -- having a section on this is probably unnecessary and possibly UNDUE, because, as he noted, it probably will not be a major event on its own. However, it is a major event relating to the tax incentives controversy. Acdixon, what is your opinion of briefly mentioning it within the "Subsequent events" section of the article in addition to the tax incentives section? Also, what do you think about this reorganization where info about the Grant County and Williamstown governments' opposition to the tax incentives was moved to the tax incentives section? --1990'sguy (talk) 03:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@1990'sguy: If the disputes with Grant County and Williamstown occurred in a vacuum, I might be inclined to agree with Rhadow (talk · contribs) that they could go under "Subsequent events", where they would make sense chronologically. But since it seems very likely that the dispute motivated the sale to Crosswater Canyon, the sale motivated the withdrawal of the tax incentives by the state, and the withdrawal of the incentives motivated the reversal of the Crosswater Canyon sale, all those events strike me as being "of a piece". To me, it is easiest to avoid having to repeat information (for context and clarity) if the information currently under "2017 Sale of the property" becomes an extension of the "Tax incentives" section.

I have other concerns with the present version of the article:

• The sentence "Ark Encounter had also negotiated a deal that would return 75% of the property tax increases over the next thirty years." is redundant. This information appears in the first sentence of the third paragraph under "Planning". It should be removed.
• The sentence "The land has been valued at either $18.5 million (on the deed from Ark Encounter) or $48 million (from the local county property value administrator)." doesn't appear to be connected to any other thought in the article. I know it is information reported in third-party sources, but what is its relevance? Same problem with the sentence "Property sale documents continued to list the value at $18 million, in conflict with the $48 million assessment by Clark County," and this one gets the county wrong to boot. (Ark Encounter is in Grant County.)
• We should not cite the letter to James Parsons for anything in the article. In the first place, it is a primary source. In the second, it is hosted on the Freedom From Religion Foundation's web site. The information presently cited to this source could easily be cited to a more neutral third-party source.

As usual, I will leave these comments here to see how others feel first instead of WP:BOLDly making changes. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@Acdixon: I think your proposed changes would be helpful. I encourage you to go BOLD. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

In my most recent update, which reflects Ark Encounter's stated intent to pay the safety assessment, I made a couple of these changes, which I have now struck. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 00:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@Acdixon: Thanks. I strongly encourage you to make the other edits. Do you think the "2017 Sale of the property" should be merged into the "Tax incentives" section? Unrelated to all this, I was unsure about this edit which moved part of the info about attendance into the tax incentives section, but upon further review, I think it was a good idea. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@1990'sguy: As noted above, I believe the information about the sale is relevant to the tax incentives, that the sale (now that it has been reversed) is unlikely to merit its own subheading, and consequently, that the section should be merged into the tax incentives section. I will wait a few days to see if any well-reasoned objections develop, including whether Rhadow (talk · contribs) wants to weigh in again after the past few days' developments. I'd rather hash it out here once than engage in a series of edits where folks are talking past each other in their edit summaries. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@1990'sguy: @Acdixon: Nah. I won't complain. Sale was a new chapter. Sale and return for refund gets two sentences anywhere it makes sense. Rhadow (talk)

@Acdixon: I encourage you to make the remaining changes now. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@1990'sguy: Done. Thanks for the reminder. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Ken Ham

I found the comments by Ken Ham to be undue. Preserving here:

• AiG President Ken Ham has criticized media reports reporting low regional economic benefits and wrote an op-ed to the Lexington Herald-Leader criticizing a June 2017 story it published on the attraction's effects. In another op-ed at The Cincinnati Enquirer, Ham stated that the Ark Encounter was attracting so many tourists that additional hotels and restaurants were needed in the Northern Kentucky area.

References

K.e.coffman (talk) 03:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: Why is this info undue? --1990'sguy (talk) 12:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Ham is not a source that is independent of the subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: But Ham owns the Ark Encounter. Surely we can include his response to criticism of his establishment? --1990'sguy (talk) 14:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

You have not responded to my followup question, and I think the rationale you have given is extremely weak, so I restored the comment. We can include non-indepdndent sources if the context is appropriate, and in this case (the owner's response to criticism of his establishment) it is. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

AiG theories

A recent edit changed some stable language that referred to "AiG's theories" about what happened inside and outside the ark to say AiG's "guess". I reverted this as unencyclopedic, whereupon Theroadislong (talk · contribs) changed the language again to read "AiG's interpretation of". I don't really love that suggestion, and I really don't think "theories" was problematic, but in the interest of not having an edit summary conversation among many editors, I thought I'd just bring the conversation here to reach consensus, if possible.

I suspect the original editor might have had a concern about "theory" being interpreted in the scientific sense, but since the mainstream view appears to be that there was no Noah, no ark, and no flood, I'm not sure why anyone would think that "theory" used in reference to what happened during a supposedly non-existent event would be construed in the scientific sense rather than the more general sense. The Wikipedia Category:Theories contains a subcategory for "Fringe theories", which I suppose is the mainstream view of anything related to the flood, so even our own category nomenclature allows for "theory". "Interpretations" leaves us with the obvious question "interpretations of what", which I suspect wouldn't be a succinct answer. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, this is an interesting situation. The phrase theory does sit with me wrong, but you're right that "interpretation of" seems lacking as well. Though the latter sits better with me than the former. PureRED | talk to me | 18:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The difficulty with using the word "theory" without the qualifying "fringe" before it is that it implies that AIG's interpretation of facts is of equal validity to the actual scientific facts? Theroadislong (talk) 18:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

That sums it up pretty well. PureRED | talk to me | 18:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

What are the scientific facts about "what may have happened inside and outside the ark during the flood"? According to science, there was no Noah, no flood, and no ark, so science would say there are no facts about that against which to compare AiG's theories. The context of the statement is not whether or not the flood happened, but if it did, what might have occurred inside or outside the ark. As far as I'm aware, science has remained silent on that. The only theories – fringe or otherwise – about what happened during the flood would, by definition, have to come from folks who first agree that the flood happened. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I think that interpretation is pretty good, an alternative would be beliefs. —PaleoNeonate – 05:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

it seems to me that the word "concept" fits the bill... --OtisDixon (talk) 04:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I think "beliefs" is a little problematic, as there is some theorizing or hypothesizing involved. They are not dogmatic about these things the way they are about YEC proper. I don't love "concepts", either, but how about "ideas"? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. There was nothing wrong with using the term "theory", as AiG was theorizing what happened on the Ark during the Flood. It may not have been theorizing in the sense that scientists use, but the term "theory" has different definitions that we can differentiate based on context. The word "interpretation" is bad in this context, as I'm not aware of anyone interpreting the evidence of what happened on the Ark during the Flood differently. I think that "ideas" (as Acdixon suggested) or "views" are also acceptable terms. Whatever the consensus is, AiG does not hold very strongly to these specific views on what happened in and out of the Ark, so we should avoid using terms that make these views sound dogmatic. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

"Theory" here is not "scientific theory" which are important to distinguish. "as AiG was theorizing what happened on the Ark during the Flood" speculation would also be one of the possible terms for this. "interpreting the evidence of what happened on the Ark during the Flood" there is no evidence to study so I'm unsure what this means... —PaleoNeonate – 15:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

What about "ideas" or "views"? --1990'sguy (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes I'm happy with either. Theroadislong (talk) 14:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Ditto. —PaleoNeonate – 21:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Fundamentalism does not imply literalism, contrary to the hallmark claim above

IMHO: Fundamentalism as a term goes back to the Fundamentalist vs Modernist controversy of the early 20th century. Denominational leaders were denying all sorts of Christian doctrines. In the midst of so much denial, the need arose to address what were the basics, the fundamentals which define Christianity. Men disagree on matters like how often to have the Lord's Supper, whether or not sprinkling is baptism, the color of choir robes, anything and everything. But disagreements on church government and manners of conducting church services do not define one as Christian vs non-Christian. (Trusting the Lord Jesus as Savior, having him adequately defined does.) So some small list was developed with the implication that these are basic truths; so basic that to deny them was to remove oneself from the designation of Christian, such matters as belief that the Bible is the Word of God, the Trinity, justification by faith, the resurrection of Christ, the two natures of Christ as God and man. How literal one interpreted scripture was not and is not a fundamental. It is the belief that the Bible is God's word which is the fundamental, not whether or not the creation story is literal or whether or not prophecies are literal. Christ said, "I am the door." It is not a fundamentalist position that the Lord has hinges!

Thus the idea of "fundamentals" is that much disagreement between Christians is permissible without excommunication; however, there is an extreme negating of basic doctrines which justifies excommunication, deeming the person a non-Christian, even if he wants to receive money for being a "Christian," as a professor in a university or minister under color of being "Christian."

Nonetheless, the term tended to receive sneering disapproval from media and to be distorted to mean fanatical. And when Muslim Arab terrorists arose, our media gave them the title of "fundamentalist" in a effort to discredit those who believe in the basics of Christianity by association, though such Muslims never called themselves "fundamentalists." Thus the word evolved into being a slur word to label those who believe the basics of Christianity.

Thus IMHO, the term should be thrown out of this article. The relevant issue is the belief that Noah and the ark are historical vs just a story, though the building of a model of the ark could be done by those with either belief. So perhaps the article would be improved by focusing on the actual structure and its faithfulness to the Biblical description.(PeacePeace (talk) 01:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC))

I agree with you that the definitions of fundamentalism and literalism are distinct. In this case they probably both apply, with the label sourced from this New York Times article. —PaleoNeonate – 03:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• AE scutosaurus.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)