Talk:Is Genesis History?/Archive 1

Category
We have Category:Pseudoscience documentary films although considering the few entries it has it may not be the appropriate one. We also have Category:Propaganda films but here again the entries are not for religious articles. A more appropriate category probably exists, input welcome. For now Category:Creation science is probably adequate. Category:Pseudoscience documentary films is now present but can be contested. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 21:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I won't contest Category:Pseudoscience documentary films, but I wouldn't mind if it is deleted. I think Wikipedia is going too far in how it labels minority/fringe viewpoints as "pseudoscience" and the like, even if there is no evidence for such views. I strongly oppose the inclusion of Category:Propaganda films, which would be very POV to include here (and doing so would massively widen the scope of films considered "propaganda"). Category:Creation science is a good category, as creation science is not mutually inclusive with Category:Young Earth creationism. I have a feeling that including Category:Documentary films about science might be a controversial decision of mine, but I strongly think it should stay because this documentary delves into the science part of YEC as opposed to theology/Christianity. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 21:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "how it labels minority/fringe viewpoints as `pseudoscience' and the like, even if there is no evidence for such views" Usually the evidence is the denial or misinterpretation of data which is widely understood by other scientists in the relevant field. For instance, competent geologists should understand how we date the earth and that for instance there isn't evidence for a global flood since humanity exists, that Homo Sapiens have been around for 200-300k years, etc. Personal religious views can remain outside of the reach of science, but when beliefs interfere with rational and critical thinking to a point where much of the physical evidence must be dismissed or where the interpretation of that evidence requires a lot of twisting, or that the scientific establishment must become part of a conspiracy theory to mislead (thinking that beliefs and politics would be its concerns, or that it is influenced by evil invisible forces, rather than simply being about knowledge development), in attempt to reconcile it with iron-age beliefs, this is where it leaves the realm of good science. Claiming to do science this way can be called doing pseudoscience (it departed from the intellectually-honest scientific method, but claims to be doing science).  I hope this explains why plenty of reliable sources will describe it as such and why we also should report this in an encyclopedia that cares about knowledge and education.  This also sticks to WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE/PS.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 06:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Category:Pseudoscience documentary films sounds right to me. As I suspect you already know, the overwhelming majority of sources do not consider Young Earth creationism to be a scientific viewpoint (see our article on creation science), so the attempts throughout this article to present it as science, and this film as a science documentary, is not in accordance with WP:NPOV. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 23:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * First off, why isn't Category:Pseudoscience documentary films not a subcategory of Category:Documentary films about science? More importantly, the latter category describes films about science. You can think that this movie is as pseudoscientific as it gets, but it still revolves around science, rejecting evolution. I have to say, some of your comments equally violate NPOV -- these people advocate YEC, but rather than just saying that they believe unscientific ideas, you make the very broad claim that they are not scientists at all. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 03:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Pseudoscience is, by definition, not science, so I don't see why it would be a subcat. From the description here it sounds like this film is about pseudoscience and religion (creationism), not science, hence removing Category:Documentary films about science.
 * I would say that I'm disputing your rather broad claim that they are scientists – a point I would be happy to concede if you can produce a reliable source that describes them as such. I did individually search for each of the interviewees mentioned in the article before making these changes, and found that none of them are currently working scientists at bona fide research institutions, and when mentioned in reliable sources they are invariably described as "creationists" rather than scientists. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * So how would you define scientist? Take Kurt Wise for instance. Even Richard Dawkins recognizes his credentials. His advisor was Stephen J. Gould and his dissertation was "The Estimation of True Taxonomic Durations from Fossil Occurrence Data" awarded from Harvard in 1989. He continues to do research on the natural world, per the definition in WP. Even if his assumptions and findings differ from others, he still fits the definition of a scientist in every way. In fact, there have been countless "scientists" who disagreed with the establishment only to be vindicated with time. I'm not saying that's the case here, but it is curious censorship based on what appears to be pure subjectivity. Please explain how it is not.Boeldieu (talk) 03:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There's more to being a scientist than getting a degree. It is a profession attached to a certain philosophy: the systematic understanding of the natural world through empirical experiment and observation. So-called creation scientists don't just look at evidence and reach a different conclusion, they ignore and distort evidence until it fits a preconceived religious view. They reject the scientific method in favour of theology dressed up in a lab coat. That is fundamentally at odds with being a scientist. More prosaically, being a scientist implies being employed to work as a scientist. Very few creationists work at mainstream universities or research institutes. They invariably end up at seminaries, bible colleges, or evangelical nonprofits, another sign that they have abandoned science in favour of theology.
 * This may be subjective but I believe it is the generally accepted view. Ultimately, on Wikipedia we fall back on what the sources say. If you google the people on the cast list, you will find that reliable sources tend to refer to them as a "creationist", or occasionally a "creationist palaeontologist" (etc.), but never a "scientist" or a subject expert without the qualifier. So we shouldn't either. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)


 * If having credentials makes one a scientist, then it's easy enough to extrapolate that to "anyone who has credentials in a field is a member of that field." So I am a guerilla and a soldier.
 * But there's more. You see, I actually have a science degree. More importantly (and more than many of these creationists can claim), I've even published a paper in a well-respected peer-reviewed journal. I have an Erdos number, though it's a rather high one. So I guess I'm a scientist, too.
 * But I've also been certified in HEMA, so I guess that makes me a Knight. And I have a 3rd dan in ninjutsu so I'm also a ninja.
 * Let's see, what else? Oh, I'm on a video game developers list of closed alpha testers, so I'm a professional gamer.
 * So where are we? Oh yeah, guerilla-soldier-scientist-knight-ninja-pro-gamer (sounds like I aught to have a thac0 of negative ten gajillion or so). While that sounds pretty badass in terms of bragging rights, the truth is that I'm just a software developer and an engineer. I work in an office, on a computer. I could go on for hours about SDKs and the merits of different languages, long after I would have run out of stories from my time in the Army, or from one of my innumerable hobbies.
 * The simple fact is, regardless of their credentials, if they don't do science, they're not scientists. Now, it was my impression that some of these guys actually work in science (sciences that don't address creationism), so I'm okay with those guys being referred to as scientists. Though I might be wrong about them. But even if I'm right, their jobs don't "rub off" on the others. If we can't verify that every single one of them works in science, we can't collectively refer to them as scientists. This is WP:V 101 stuff. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  03:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

edit warring
When you are reverted, you are expected to come to talk and discuss. You are not expected to just revert again and keep charging ahead. Well, here is your chance to discuss before you get reverted again, by someone else. Convince me that the transcript was actually evidence, and that the film's website is a reliable source for the credentials of people interviewed. Alternatively, you can find better sources and wordings. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  21:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * As for me, I know the rules of WP, and I did not violate any of them. I saw Boeldieu's edit, and I read the article, and I think the editor is correct. My edit did not say anything about whether the transcript was sufficient evidence or good evidence, but Purifoy clearly linked the full movie interview, intended as evidence for his position. Seems simple to me. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The bit about expectations was not directed at you. Apologies for not making that clear.
 * Would you object to "...presented the full film interview with Nelson as evidence..." as an alternative wording? Because "...linked the full film interview with Nelson as evidence..." suggests that it was evidence, which is -given the nature of the back-and-forth- purely subjective. "linked" doesn't connotate intention, merely action, whereas "presented" implies both. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not object, and apology accepted. I think the wording issue is minor. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting a discussion started.
 * Regarding the cast and their credentials:
 * I'm not familiar with how these problems have been handled in similar articles (articles about movies presenting FRINGE topics based mostly on interviews of "experts").
 * IMDB is a poor source, especially for BLP-related info (See External_links/Perennial_websites).
 * The film site currently used as a reference says, "Learn from more than a dozen scientists and scholars as they explore the world around us in light of Genesis."
 * As for the false dichotomy, I don't see why the filmmakers' response is due at all without an independent source. --Ronz (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * IMDB is, I believe, generally considered acceptable for a cast list. I'm not 100% sure on that, we'd have to search the RSN archives to be sure and that will take a while. I'll get on it tomorrow if it's still an issue.
 * You raise a good point about the response, I'll hjave to give that some thought. Also, I know I reverted a bit about the credentials, but that's based on the use of the film website as a source. I'm pretty sure the credentials listed are accurate, I just want to see better sourcing before it's said in wikivoice. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  23:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think IMDB is fine for a simple cast list, but that's not what editors have been attempting to do. Instead, they want a list of the experts with credentials. Given that the Synopsis section already identifies them as creation scientists, why not just have a cast list without the extras? --Ronz (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I would be okay with that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  23:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think a full cast list is fine, but it shouldn't include educational credentials (per MOS:CREDENTIALS) or descriptions of the interviewees as scientists (since they are all creationists, this is a controversial label, and we lack a reliable source to back it up).
 * 's continued insistence that the cast section includes the text "scholars and creation scientists" seems redundant to me, given that the section before it says exactly the same thing, but that's a quibble. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 01:24, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, as creationists with credentials which are germane to the issue, it's extremely doubtful that any of them do any actual science. But the MOS is pretty clear and it's something we do when we're talking about actual scientists, so not following it here would be a pro-creationism POV issue. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Since I'm the one that stepped in and got the edit war started, my apologies. I am new, so I'm sure I stepped on a few WP toes. That said, I agree that credentials are unnecessary for a cast, so removed. However, as a statement of fact for identifying the cast members (since they are clearly important to the whomever decided to include them), one can only cross-reference sites and compare. So far as I can find, there is no other list anywhere, and all these lists agree. Please demonstrate any precedent for other nationally-released feature films listed on WP that require additional proof for their cast. Thank you for your patience with maladroit users. Boeldieu (talk) 02:24, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Reception section and WP:PSCI
I have pulled the reception section into alignment with the WP:PSCI policy. I had to reach for a low quality set of refs but this is allowable per WP:PARITY. I also reduced the WEIGHT given to pseudoscience advocacy, again per the WP:PSCI policy.

I've provided notice to everybody of the DS on PSCI via a tag at the top of this page. Jytdog (talk) 07:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Fine, but there was zero reason to remove the favorable reviews that you did -- it was completely arbitrary. All of these YEC or YEC-friendly organizations are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles, so we can include what they said. However, (to be clear) I did shorten the article info on those reviews so it does not take so much space.


 * Also, the Orlando Sentinel article was not a movie review. Another editor also removed it from the "reception" section a few days ago for that same reason.


 * Regarding the designation of the film as a documentary, the RSs that I've seen describe it as a documentary. Just because that designation may insult your intelligence or whatever doesn't make it not a documentary. These people think they are documenting reality, and the intentions are what matter. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 12:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The Orlando Sentinel article was a review of several films: that does not make it something other than a review, nor does the fact that the writer didn't explicitly grade the films. There's a lot more to reviews than just answering the question "Should the reader watch it?"
 * And I'm not aware of any policy that says that RS reactions to a film must be in the form of reviews. This was quite clearly a reaction (it was fairly blatant satire), which falls under the aegis of the public reception. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I can accept including the Orlando Sentinel, after reading your good rationale for including it, if presented the right way. I think your edit did that. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 13:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

TheGospelCoalition does not have a position for or against young Earth creation. The article cited is solely the position of it's author, Gavin Ortlund. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.144.69.252 (talk) 17:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. It was a blogger on the site, not the organization "speaking" in that blog. We don't have  to discuss what the organization's position is or is not. Jytdog (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I revised the wording to mention their names and still show the organizations they wrote for. Biologos and Reasons to Believe clearly have the same POV as the authors, and it still gives context to mention those organizations' names. Also, some of the writers (particularly the Biologos article) were academics, not bloggers. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * content in Wikipdia needs to be supported by sources. the description of the bloggers here was unsourced and there is actually no need to mention where they were blogging. Jytdog (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Biologos, Reasons to Believe, and TGC are notable organizations -- we should mention where they are writing, just like we do with the other reviews. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And you ignored the fact that the Biologos people were academics, not bloggers. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 21:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Patheos
What makes this blog a RS? SLIGHTLY mad   08:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a question I sometimes asked myself. While it is popular, and apparently has a certain type of oversight on at least part of their publications, I have read various articles on various subjects which contained uncorrected misconceptions and errors.  It may be a good idea to discuss this source again at WP:RSN, but also see, from the archives: 1, 2, 3.  Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate  – 09:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Rotten tomatoes
As discussed here, RT is fine. Jytdog (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The talk page discussion refers to the "consensus statement" for movies on Rotton Tomatoes. I agree that the R.T. "consensus statement" and the included ratings from professional reviewers is fine to cite -- what I do have a problem with is the audience scores, as anybody can vote. Voluntary polls and not scientific and are not reliable, and that is what the Rotton Tomato audience score is. I am strictly following WP:MOSFILM: "Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database or Rotten Tomatoes, as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew." It is Jytdog who is going against the consensus on this. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 21:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The source is fine; the content could use tweaking perhaps. You removed it completely. It is a bit hard to see you doing anything "strictly" on this; see the section above.  Why "strict" here and not when citing christian blogs?  Jytdog (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The link is still in the "External links" section, where it belongs. I support including the "consensus statement" and professional reviews compiled by R.T., but the audience score (a voluntary response poll) is completely unacceptable, per MOSFILM. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's see what others say; in the meantime you have blown past 3RR and can expect a block, since you chose to edit war instead of discuss. Jytdog (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, for whatever reason, you've decided to completely disregard WP:MOSFILM, which I linked to several times. The wording is clear enough: "Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database or Rotten Tomatoes, as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew." --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That was part of the content and fixable. your complete removal of content based on the source was just raw advocacy; as I said you can expect a block or warning for edit warring without discussion.  There is no "winning" in Wikipedia; it isn't about that.  Jytdog (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The audience score was the content, period. There is no "consensus statement" or professional reviews compiled on the R.T. site, so me removing the audience score was synonymous with removing the entire paragraph. Besides, your "raw advocacy" garbage shows you are ignoring the fact that since voluntary response polls are unreliable and unscientific, we should keep them out. There is nothing in the R.T. source (and the paragraph in dispute) of substance other than that. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Do your quotation marks actually indicate a quote, ? Because I don't see talking about "winning" anywhere. I also disagree with 1990'sguy's POV on this subject but they are the one talking about the content, whilst you are throwing out accusations left right and centre. Also, as far as I can tell you are not an administrator, so why do you keep threatening blocks? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 21:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It was negative content that 1990sguy was scrubbing. Which is what all their removals from this article have been.  They have a clear pattern of promotional editing (adding PROMO, removing negative content) on this article - it takes only a few minutes to see this. Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Jytdog, if you added a professional review or a scientific/reliable audience poll, I would accept it without question. It is you, Jytdog, who is trying to add as much negative content about the movie at all costs, even if it's an unreliable/unscientific voluntary response poll. I included several negative reviews of the movie when I originally created the article. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please keep writing; these diffs are valuable to me. I look forward to hearing from others about how to use the Rotten Tomatoes ref as a source.  Jytdog (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what you have assumed 1990'sguy's motives for editing this article are, we don't typically include user ratings in reception sections, and this is clearly backed up by WP:MOSFILM. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You are repeating yourself. Jytdog (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 22:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

While administrators are the ones who block, issuing warnings on the part of non-administrators is standard practice (in this case the 3RR template was avoided in favor of prose). Those templates also include warnings about potential blocks. An an3 case was also opened from what I see (so it also wasn't only a threat). While it seems to be difficult for everyone, I suggest to pursue any aspersions either at user talk pages or at the administrator noticeboards (where it is appropriate) and to only discuss content on this talk page. Something of interest in this case may be WP:PARITY which permits to use sources which would otherwise not be considered ideal. I'm not sure if this can apply in this case. The manual of style is also distinct from policies (which are more fundamental). Also of interest on the same MOS page are the sentences: and  so it seems that not all information from RT is considered equal... — Paleo Neonate  – 00:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I already said before, I have no problem with citing Rotton Tomatoes for professional reviews and the "consensus statement" added by R.T.'s editors. My problem is with citing the voluntary response poll for the audience score (you and I could vote on that if we wanted to, so that score is worthless), which MOSFILM explicitly tells us not to include. However, it just so happens that most the internet users who decided to voluntarily vote on R.T.'s website happened to mainly dislike to movie, so it's obvious why Jytdog wanted it added (just look at the AfD page and this article's history). --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 00:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I just recently conceded an argument over whether audience scores can be included at The Orville, having made an "include" argument. With that being said, I'm not so sure that WP:PARITY would apply here, as the subject of the article itself is not WP:FRINGE, but rather a 'documentary' about a fringe subject. But I'm damn sure that edit warring isn't the way to figure it out. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  00:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * What is a policy is WP:SPS. The Rotten Tomatoes audience score (or Metacritic, IMDB, take your pick) is simply 349 random people's self-published opinions. There's no editorial oversight to ensure that they are informed reviews; there aren't even reviews to speak of, just numerical ratings. All the guidelines you quote are referring to actual reviews by actual film critics, which is what we should be basing articles on. This is barely a step above including how many Facebook likes it got. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 01:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I self-reverted due to 3RR issues, but someone really should remove the paragraph. Its only purpose is to promote an unreliable/unscientific voluntary response internet poll from R.T., something which WP:MOSFILM explicitly tells us not to do. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 03:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I removed the bit you were objecting to. Jytdog (talk) 04:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The whole paragraph should be removed. It's irrelevant if Rotton Tomatoes did not have a score for the movie. Are you also going to add that The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Guardian, did not rate the movie? This is essentially what the paragraph does. We should discuss the people who did comment on the movie, not the people who didn't (unless an RS reports someone specifically not reviewing a movie). --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 04:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It shows how few mainstream reviews there were, as shown by the high prevalence of low quality blogs in the "reception" section and the lack of reviews by the places that usually provide reviews. Just one more sign of the truly FRINGE nature of this film. Jytdog (talk) 04:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Which was also the reason this article went through AfD if I recall. The closer evaluated a keep consensus, but it was a difficult discussion.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 04:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I agree with you about the WP:SPS issue. — Paleo  Neonate  – 04:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've removed the rest of the paragraph. It's not just that RT doesn't have enough reviews for a score, there are no reviews of it at all. It's just an empty page. As 1990sguy say's it would be absurd to start listing publications that haven't reviewed a film. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 12:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * A reason might be to explain the difficulty of finding proper reviews even on prominent movie review sites, indicating a lack of notability. But I'm not sure if it should be restored, I have no strong opinion about it.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 12:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm with Paleo and Jytdog on this aspect of the question: It is notable -and thus WP:DUE- that reviewers have eschewed this film. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  12:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Just look at the AfD -- editors supported keeping the movie by a 4:1 ratio (and many of them made clear that they abhor YEC and the movie). Clearly, they found the existing sources and reviews to be sufficient. Adding "that reviewers have eschewed this film" not only is another attempt to delegitimize the article as not being notable enough to have its own article (despite the AfD which concluded otherwise), but it violates WP:OR, since we should have a source that specifically says that the movie got little coverage if we want to include this. Rotton Tomatoes does not determine notability. Otherwise, just stick to mention who did review the movie. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 12:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Adding "that reviewers have eschewed this film" not only is another attempt to delegitimize the article as not being notable enough to have its own article Please stop imagining motivations for editors, at least two of whom never !voted in that AfD. If you cannot, I will eventually begin mocking the unbelievably ridiculous notion that you have any ability to discern the "true" motivations of others through constant references to the psychic powers this would require. ;)
 * but it violates WP:OR, since we should have a source that specifically says that the movie got little coverage The Rotten tomatoes source explicitly says that this movie got no reviews. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * My comment was mainly directed at Jytdog, not at you. He has made his intentions very clear at the AfD, and I have reason to believe that he is not finished trying to delete the article. Besides, show me another movie article that actually says that it didn't get professional reviews, such as on Rotton Tomatoes -- not every movie that has a Wikipedia article also has professional reviews on Rotton Tomatoes -- this article is not an exception. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 13:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * My previous "warning" was a somewhat light-hearted, but the truth is that nobody cares if you "have reasons to believe" you know the motivations of another editor. Willfully ignoring WP:AGF for a longstanding editor with a good reputation is a ticket to being blocked. It is, at the very least, evidence that may be used against you should you do something untoward and get reported to ANI, to establish a pattern of disruptive or battleground behavior. So please just don't do it. Besides, I can look at that comment as evidence that Jytdog is not trying to get the article deleted, but that he believes it is just a matter of time before someone else gets it deleted. You should consider that possibility, as well.
 * The assignation of motives to a person with whom you only communicate over the internet is something that should only be done when you can provide convincing evidence that only a small number (but more than one) of possibilities for their motives exist, or when that person directly states their motivations. Should you ever find convincing evidence (that does not consist of a direct statement from that person about their motivations) that only one possible motivation can be at play, rest assured that your own biases (which we all have) are affecting your judgement, preventing you from seeing other possibilities. This has been my experience, both with myself and with others.
 * Excluding those cases where the person explicitly states their motivations, any time only ONE motivation makes sense, another person will come along and list at least one additional motivation that, upon reflection, will make sense. It is only when one can only see a small number of possible motivations that the impression turns out to be accurate. This is especially true when at least two of those few motivations are mutually exclusive. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In the interest of fairness, since WP:AGF and the potential breach thereof was brought up here, let's acknowledge that 1990'sguy was not the only one making a potentially problematic assumption about the motives of another editor. Claiming that 1990'sguy is "scrubbing" negative content, editing promotionally, and accusing him of trying to WP:OWN the article could all potentially be construed as running afoul of AGF as well. As far as I have seen, he has supported each of his insertions and deletions with a rationale other than whitewashing or promotion. Folks are free to disagree with those rationales, but they are not free to substitute their own notions about his "real" motives without compelling evidence. YEC-related articles are clearly ones that both 1990'sguy and Jytdog are passionate about and hold diametrically opposing views on. Further than this, we should not go when talking about their motives for editing, per WP:AOBF. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Back to the subject: show me another movie article that actually says that it didn't get professional reviews Show us another movie article on a movie which does not say that it didn't get professional reviews, plus a source that says it didn't get any, and nobody can stop you from adding a sentence saying it didn't get any.
 * Every article on a movie for which we have a source explicitly saying it got no reviews, can say that. When we have no such quote, it can't. Simple. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think our readers care about our internal arguments over notability. We had a truly exhaustive discussion about it at AfD, so please let's not rehash it here. Also, RT doesn't say the film got no reviews (which is patently false), it merely has a blank space where the reviews would normally be; maybe that's because RT rejected the reviews that are out there, maybe it's because they only aggregate reviews from a limited list of outlets, maybe it's just because it's a small indie film on an eccentric subject so they haven't bothered to look. We simply don't know, so I think using that absence to make a point about the lack of mainstream attention the film has gotten is a clear case of original research. And again, I don't think our readers care. To repeat an argument I made at AfD, WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE don't mean we have to spoonfeed the reader the "right" perspective. The reception section already makes it perfectly clear that the film has primarily been discussed in Christian and creationist media. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 14:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, but the issue is how difficult it is to build a proper article. Jytdog even had to resort to WP:PARITY to include source(s) we would not normally consider reliable, but which gave a resonable enough treatment of the topic to be used.  Now we would also like to summarize independent professional reviews, but they are lacking...  — Paleo  Neonate  – 22:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The sources we have are the sources we have, and I think the article does a reasonable job of summarising them in its current version. If you think we're unable to write an article that conforms to the core content policies with them then you should take it to AfD again (please don't). Otherwise we don't bend the rules to try and 'debunk' subjects we don't like. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 23:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Joe you asked here "why would we list which websites DON'T have reviews of the film?" The question is not really fair the way it is stated.  If we went from citing newspaper after newspaper (NYT, vanity fair, LA Times etc etc) and said "X has no review" that would be weird and ORish and your question would be fair.  But RT is an aggregator, which is why it is used so much.  If you ask "Why would we say that RT doesn't have reviews", it would be "it is noteworthy that RT doesn't have any reviews to list, and arguably DUE to state that".  Now, it is kind of OR-ish to write what what the original editor wrote (and btw, looking at that person's contribs, they write mostly about movies), that "Due to an insufficient number of reviews, aggregator site Rotten Tomatoes lacks a score for the film."  It would not be OR to say: "As of October 2017 Rotten Tomatoes' "Tomatometer" had no rating and the site listed no reviews for the film" which is simply reporting what is there and not interpreting it. (giving the reason for the lack of a tomatometer --  "due an insufficient number of reviews" -- is the interpreting, ORish part of the edit)
 * So, User:Slightlymad can you say why you think your original content is not WP:OR? Do you find this sort of statement commonly in your editing about movies in WP?
 * I look forward to hearing from Slightlymad, and may do an RfC on this. It is kind of interesting.  Jytdog (talk) 23:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well yeah, RT consensus (or lack thereof) is pretty standard to report on film articles. But in this article's case, there are no reviews collected from critics/reviewers alike so I think it'd be immaterial to add them, in retrospect.  SLIGHTLY  mad   02:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

If the crux of the biscuit here is adding a statement about RT lacking reviews so that our readers will understand why the Wikipedia article is so sparsely dependent upon professional reviews, let me posit the following:
 * 1) I suspect relatively few of our readers will be struck by the lack of professional reviews. There are a number of Wiki articles that are woefully incomplete – some because the sources don't exist, and some because no one has bothered to consult the extant sources and improve the article. My assumption is that the majority of readers of this article would be inclined to shrug it off and say, "Well, that's how Wikipedia is sometimes."
 * 2) For the presumed minority of readers who do find it odd that the article has so few professional reviews, this talk page and the now-closed AfD discuss the subject in extreme detail, and they are just a couple of clicks away.
 * 3) For the subset of readers who are both struck by the lack of professional reviews and motivated to try and fix it, they will have one of two experiences:
 * They will search for professional reviews with which to improve the article, find none, understand that the article was constructed using what was available, and then be in the same boat with all the rest of us here; OR
 * They will search for professional reviews and find one or more than the editors here were unable to find, for whatever reason, and they will try to make the article better based upon what they found. That's a good thing.

In any case, I don't feel like it's our job as content creators to use the body of the article proper to essentially apologize for the lack of available sources. That seems to be the gist of the rationale for including the fact that the RT aggregator hasn't listed any reviews for the film. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Fathom
Content is about Fathom really, but if we are going to say it, we just summarize the source, we don't do our own analysis. If we are going to say something like this we should also say something like "As of December 2017 it was ranked 6,761 in the "all time domestic gross" list at Box Office Mojo and 197 in the "Top Movies in the Past 365 Days" list there." ref Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think it belongs at all. Whether this was the second-highest grossing of their films, the lowest grossing, the highest or somewhere in the middle doesn't contribute to the reader's understanding of the film unless and until the production company itself becomes a large, noteworthy business. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The section I added the info was the box office/release section. This info is definitely relevant to the performance of the movie, and Variety (magazine) is a reliable source to use. This source gives context to the performance of the movie, as one might want to know how the movie did compared to other Fathom movies. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 20:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This info is definitely relevant to the performance of the movie It's relevant to the performance of the movie in comparison to other Fathom films. So if you were to add it to Fathom Events, I'd be perfectly fine with that. But in comparison to films in general, this film's success relative to other Fathom films is meaningless. Hell, most readers will have to click the blue text in the lede to even know what Fathom Events is. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The fact that many people don't know about Fathom Events is irrelevant. Many people also have no clue what "BoxOfficeMojo" is, but that source is cited extensively on various Wikipedia articles to prove that "this movie is the seventh highest-grossing political documentary of all time", etc. Facts like these, regardless of whether they come from Variety or BoxOfficeMojo, or whether they have to do with all movies or only Fathom Events, are notable enough for a movie to add. I am OK adding the BOM ranking as well for IGH, BTW. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Many people also have no clue what "BoxOfficeMojo" is, but that source is cited extensively on various Wikipedia articles We're not citing Fathom as a source. We're not talking about citing them as a source. I'm fine with the BOM rankings, just not that particular claim, because the BOM rankings have built-in context. Saying it's the second-highest grossing film distributed by a company nobody's ever heard of is just plain meaningless. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the two users who wish to remove the information about the performance of the film desire to censor the facts about the film's success. There's not really a good reason not to include the material, especially since a reliable source discusses that information in its article about the film. desmay (talk) 17:09, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment on content, not on contributors. Your comment does not provide any policy based reason for inclusion (see WP:DUE for an explicit denouncement of your "the RS mentions it, so we should, too" argument). In addition, cries of "censorship" are one of the absolute worst arguments on WP, as; "Censorship!" is the battlecry of the POV warrior. Your userpage does nothing to diminish that impression, and indeed, furthers it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The content does not violate WP:UNDUE. Not many movies are Fathom films, and most of them make well under $1 million. A Fathom movie with such high relative notability, coverage, and box office is not common. I think 90s guy is right when he says that this source gives context. It is not "trivia." You also made a WP:PERSONAL attack against me when telling me not to make personal attacks. This line sticks out: 'Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views". My user page has nothing to do with my commenting here. desmay (talk) 01:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * A Fathom movie with such high relative notability, coverage, and box office is not common. I've bolded the relevant word. Our article on Fathom is barely 3kb in text (205 words). I've already checked for further sources, and with a concerted effort, I might be able to add another 100 words or so to the article. The reason is a matter of WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOTABILITY of the company. It's simply not a very notable company. Perhaps notable enough to survive and RfD, but certainly not a major player, in any sense. Now; they might distribute a film that achieves more notability, and indeed they did with this one. But that doesn't make the performance of their other films more notable. There are works by Dickens, Haggard, Poe, Twain, King and other obviously notable authors that are not, themselves notable enough for articles. Indeed, they're not even mentioned outside of a bibliography on the author's page.
 * So the suggestion that the performance of this film, in relation to the performance of several non-notable films achieves WP:DUE weight is a non-starter. It doesn't. That being said, a filmography over at Fathom Events might very well be due. In fact, I would likely support such an edit, were it contested. Such an edit could very well include this very information without batting a single eye, because the context at that page is such that this film's performance relative to other Fathom films would be due there. But here? It's pure puffery. In the history of cinema, under the year 2017, no historian will ever note that this was Fathom's best performing release. But Conservapedia would certainly harp on and on about that information.
 * You also made a WP:PERSONAL attack against me when telling me not to make personal attacks. LOL No, I didn't. That's such an incredibly inane claim that it literally made me laugh.
 * My user page has nothing to do with my commenting here. I did not connect your user page to your comments here, except in the general sense of pointing out that they reinforce the negative impression given by the actual line of argument you have taken here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  01:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I found two other sources discussing the Fathom Events in 2017, and they note that the company had a record year in 2017: (IGH, thus, was part of that "record year") This is the context of including it here. Of course, there does not appear to be consensus for including it, so I won't argue further. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Actrually, those two sources give it a lot more weight, especially the business insider one (because it's not an industry-focused publication and it has a large readership). When there's multiple, independent reliable sources covering something, it's clearly of wider interest than would be implied by a single, industry-focused source mentioning it. Add a bit to the contentious text about how this was a part of a record year for them to establish a clear context, and I'll be happy to support inclusion, now.
 * e.g. "The screenings of Is Genesis History? were one of six sets of events organized by Fathom Events that earned more than $2 million, making 2017 a record earnings year for the company." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That looks good to me. I will add this in the next few hours, unless you do it first. Thanks. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * no - this ref putatively from business insder is a press release by Fathom and the "screendaily" ref from the next day is churnalism, directly based on the press release. Fathom is an event promoting company and they promote themselves too.  The proposed content is UNDUE with these kind of PR-driven bad refs. Jytdog (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Shit, you're right. I didn't notice that (though I would have if I'd gone ahead with formatting the refs and adding my version like I was going to do). The Screen Daily one looks okay, though. So now I'm on the edge. With three solid refs, I felt that this was due enough. With two, I'm not so sure. (Obviously, with just one I felt it was undue.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  00:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * screendaily is just churnalism - little websites that churn out new "articles" by summarizing press releases; there is no independent reporting there. Jytdog (talk) 00:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've seen it used more than a few times in film articles. I'm not so sure I agree with your summary of them, though I'll admit they're not the best source. As I said, I'm back on the fence about this. If 1990'sguy can dig up a few more sources, I'm willing to concede that this has gotten enough coverage as to make it part of the narrative of this film. Right now, I'm not really comfortable adding it in, even if I'm not as stridently opposed as I was when there was only one decent source. I could still get behind using these sources to write a bit more about how good a year they had over at Fathom Events. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  01:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What do you think about any of these sources? --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate your opinion on these, regardless of your answer. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 04:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I missed this page on my watchlist for some reason. Indiewire and the Desert Sun are good, the rest look sketchy to me. Unfortunately, neither of them support this material. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  04:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Here are the Wikipedia articles for the "sketchy" websites, in case it makes a difference: The Numbers (website), Film Journal International. The Indiewire article mentions IGH near the bottom. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 13:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay. I don't see how having stub articles changes anything. My commentary on their quality was based on the fact that the Numbers website doesn't provide any editorial policy, or any way of verifying the numbers, and I can't find enough coverage of them to conclude that they have a reputation for accuracy. My comments on the film Journal source were based on the fact that there's no byline (except "Cinemas News" which is entirely uninformative) and there's no editorial policy. Also, I did notice that both of those sources mention Fathom, but they don't support the "Fathom's best year, thanks in part to Is Genesis History" content that is being discussed here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Thanks. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 14:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

OR
Calling the Orlando reviewer's review a satire is WP:OR - citing a talk page discussion (diff, diff) as though it is a source is .... incompetent. Jytdog (talk) 01:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's common knowledge -- I hope you don't think the Orlando commentator is being sincere when he says "Just a guess, the twist is going to be that the movie answers its own question with a resounding 'NO!'" If so, the reviewer is unqualified to review the movie, not even knowing what it is about, and the review should be removed. :) It's OK to note that this is satire for readers (so they know he's joking, rather than simply not knowing what the movie is about), and it only requires one extra word. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Obvious satire is obvious. There should not be any argument over whether that quote was satirical. But it doesn't need to be labelled as such in the article. Labeling satire often defeats the purpose, and if the original source is not itself labelled, it is a technical violation of OR to label it in the article. So it's both a technical violation and poor form. I say leave out the label. Anyone who can't grok that it's satire probably doesn't grok satire anyways. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  01:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not poor form (it's only one word, and it's well-placed, so it doesn't stand out in the sentence -- and I changed the wording from what it was prior to today), and there's nothing wrong with mentioning that it's satirical -- many readers would appreciate the clarification, and it gives context for the quote. I don't see how this constitutes original research -- it doesn't reach any conclusions not supported by the source, nor does it misrepresent the source in any way. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 02:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That is a dangerous road to travel, and not how Wikipedia works. Others will weigh in here with time.
 * Btw, in the mainstream view, the movie is pseudoscience and pseudohistory, so what the reviewer answered - what the non-creationist reviewers all answered - was indeed NO. Not satirical, but damn serious. Jytdog (talk) 02:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "That is a dangerous road to travel" -- that is a ridiculous response. This dispute has nothing to do with the pseudoscience/pseudohistory stuff -- why are you bringing this up here? Talk about going off-topic. The fact that you can't see that this guy's comment (which he wrote before the movie was even released, and thus, before the non-creationist reviewers commented on the movie) is satirical shows exactly why we should note that it's a satirical comment.
 * BTW, if adding the single word "satirical" somehow violates WP:OR, your postulation that he's somehow being serious that the movie somehow argues for an old Earth and evolution violates it ten times more seriously. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 02:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It is a dangerous road to travel for the reason that unsourced OR is always dangerous. We don't invite editors to evaluate things  in that way.  I am sorry you don't understand why the nature of the film is relevant; from the perspective of mainstream science and history, the answer to the question the movie title asks, is no.  The Orlando columnist says that. Jytdog (talk) 02:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ^ What he said. It may be a technical violation, but that's still a violation. The4 fact that it's poor form (because it really doesn't need to be labelled) compounds that past something I would just shrug and overlook. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  02:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Jytdog, your response is the definition of original research -- creating interpretations of the sources (more accurately, misinterpretations) that the sources don't imply at the slightest. The plain, straightforward meaning of the sources cited is that the commentator is being satirical and that IGH argues for a recent creation. I feel like I'm in an English literature class when I see you postulate hidden meanings to the commentator's comment. I can see how your OR is dangerous. And no, this dispute has nothing to do with the nature of the movie. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Mpants doesn't support this; the revert was based on the claim that they did. Please remove "satirically" or make it clear that you will not revert its removal. Jytdog (talk) 14:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Jytdog is correct. It's worth pointing out that were this an RfC I would say weak oppose, but oppose nonetheless. We should not be attempting to characterize the sources beyond what they do so themselves. It's not that I think it's an incorrect characterization, but because this article is controversial among us three who seem to watch it, and it's better to stick to the letter of policy in such cases. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with this (I'm tempted to invoke WP:IGNORE or WP:5P5), but I'll respect the consensus and leave it alone. As the dust settles, I can see that it's not very important. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 04:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I just want to point out that I'm not reverting this edit for exactly the same reason: it's better to stick to the letter of policy on an article in which we can start this sort of row over a single word. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Which quote from blog on biologos
we formerly had this:

"According to Gregg Davidson, Joel Duff, and Ken Wolgemuth writing for The BioLogos Foundation, despite the 'excellent' cinematography of the film, 'the narrative that accompanied the rich display of God’s amazing creation fell far short of reflecting what we actually find revealed in nature.'"

I had proposed this here:

"According to Gregg Davidson, Joel Duff, and Ken Wolgemuth writing for The BioLogos Foundation, 'While the ubiquitous misrepresentations promulgated in this film are disturbing in their own right, their stated association with the gospel message is what is most alarming..... When they (Christian youth) go to college or start investigating the evidence themselves and discover they have been misled, the natural tendency is to assume that it is Christianity itself that has failed them. Unbelieving seekers who see this film will likewise be confronted with the confounding association of the truth of Christ with massive misrepresentations about natural history. An enormous stumbling block to faith is laid at the feet of these poor souls, standing between them and the cross.'"

The latter is the focus of the review - that the movie is deceptive and bad for everybody (including christians); the former version is almost a classic instance of pulling a positive quote out of a negative movie review to sell the movie.

-Jytdog (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I made my rationale for the first quote clear in this edit summary. I chose it because it was concise. The proposed quote is significantly longer. Either way, we should mention what they thought about the movie's cinematgraphy -- it's a valid aspect of movie reviews, and mentioning it here shows that the reviewers only had a problem with the movie's message. In fact, the cinematography is probably a large reason why they think the movie is deceptive, since a well-made movie tends to be more convincing to viewers.


 * But, I think it would be better if we summarize what they said, instead of a quote. I propose this: "While complementing the film's cinematography, Gregg Davidson, Joel Duff, and Ken Wolgemuth, writing for The BioLogos Foundation, argued that it promoted "ubiquitous misrepresentations" about science and would harm the gospel both for Christians and non-Christians because of them and the inconsistencies to natural history."


 * --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You are still including the one note of praise out of an overwhelmingly negative review which continues the main problem with this content, which you added when you created this and reverted to. This is not OK. Also the review doesn't say that the movie just "promotes" misrepresentations according to the review, it makes them. Jytdog (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with including what they thought about the cinematography -- cinematography is in a different category from the rest of the review. The rest of the review is about the movie's content. I am fine with changing the word "promoted" to "made" or "makes". --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I prefer the first quote. The second -while it may strike closer to the heart of the point of the review- doesn't really address the film at all. It discusses the effect the author believes the film will have (or has had) upon audiences. The first describes something good about the film in order to contrast with the overall negative review. It's a classic film review for a negatively-received film on WP. Summarizing the review, as 1990'sguy has suggested seems to me to be the best, as the proposed summary encompasses all three points of the two quotes combined, and does so succinctly.
 * I fully reject the notion that it's undue to mention the one note of praise in an overwhelmingly negative review: That bit of positivity is given to contrast the overall negativity, by the author, on purpose. It frames the negativity, establishes the author as having actually watched and analyzed the film (instead of simply dismissing it out of hand as Christian propaganda as much other coverage has done) and serves also as the one point of positivity in the reception section, contrasting the rest of the negativity there. I believe it's very important, when writing articles about such a negatively received film, for us to find those rare point of praise and mention them (without giving them undue weight). Most (bad) film articles I have read do this, and I find it very informative and balanced. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input but that quote misrepresents the review, and dramatically. This is not how we use refs. Please bear in mind that the purpose of the movie is to persuade people that Genesis is history; that is why it exists. Content addressing what the movie is doing is very on point. Jytdog (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Jytdog, I proposed a third option that involves summarizing both what the reviewers thought about the movie itself and its effect. I used both quotes for my proposal, and it is concise and is a summary rather than some picked-out quote. Your latest comment ignores this. And (correct me if I misinterpreted you, MPants), MPants said that my new proposal is the best option of the three. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 18:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I addressed that above. The proposed quote still gives half of its content to the praise of the look of the movie; this does not reflect the source. There is one brief paragraph where they say a couple of nice things; the rest of is devoted to describing how this movie is a very bad thing. What we say about the source should reflect the source.  Jytdog (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Half? I think you need to reread my proposed summary. And as I stated above, the movie's cinematography and aesthetics is a completely different category from its content -- their criticism and focus obviously were on the content (which my version makes very clear), but you're opposed to including their thoughts on a major (and essential) aspect of moviemaking. Including this also shows that this is a balanced review, as MPants pointed out. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hm. Yes not half but not appropriate in weight yet. How about "While complimenting the film's cinematography, Gregg Davidson, Joel Duff, and Ken Wolgemuth, writing for The BioLogos Foundation, said that the movie makes "ubiquitous" and "massive" misrepresentations about science and natural history, and associates those misrepresentations with Christianity. They said that the association will harm the faith of young Christians when they learn science and natural history, and will make it harder to evangelize non-believers.  This would be a more accurate summary of what they said. Jytdog (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Change "complimenting" to "praising" and I'm okay with that summary, as well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * For the record, cinematography is a huge aspect of film-making, which can make or break a film. Compare a film by The Asylum, such as Transmorphers to one of the equally-poorly-written-directed-and-acted Transformers (film series). The only real difference in quality between the two are the special effects and the cinematography. Yet one of those will emerge a clear victor in terms of which is the better overall movie. And yes, I've had to watch all of them. My kids are at that age where "giant robots" equals "OH MY GOD I WANNA WATCH IT PLEASE DADDY PLEASE LET ME WATCH IT!!!" ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:36, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Jytdog, why is your two-sentence summary better than my condensed version that is half as long and long one sentence? They both say essentially the same thing. Readers like it when we concisely convey what the sources say -- if they want additional details or more information, the actual articles are only two clicks away. Can we at least try to keep the summary at a sentence long? --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * What about this? It would be nice to keep it at a sentence. "While praising the film's cinematography, Gregg Davidson, Joel Duff, and Ken Wolgemuth, writing for The BioLogos Foundation, said that the movie makes "ubiquitous" and "massive" misrepresentations about science and natural history and associates those misrepresentations with Christianity, something which they argue will harm evangelism for both Christians and non-Christians." --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The version i proposed is better because it more accurately reflects what the source says and what it gives weight to. Again there are about 12 paragraphs and one - one of the shortest - mentions the technical values. We are no where near 12:1 in weight.  Your last version is OKish but "evangelism for Christians" is different from the loss of faith that the authors talk about "When they (Christian youth) go to college or start investigating the evidence themselves and discover they have been misled, the natural tendency is to assume that it is Christianity itself that has failed them."  I tried to capture this in the last version I offered with "will harm the faith of young Christians when they learn science and natural history"...  Jytdog (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Then would you please, at least, change your version so it can fit in a single sentence? --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

single sentence is somewhat arbitrary...but here... "While praising the film's cinematography, Gregg Davidson, Joel Duff, and Ken Wolgemuth, writing for The BioLogos Foundation, said that the movie makes "ubiquitous" and "massive" misrepresentations about science and natural history and associates those misrepresentations with Christianity, something which they argue will harm the faith of Christians and efforts to evangelize non-Christians." Jytdog (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This looks good to me. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * done. well, it was nice to work through something with you. :) Jytdog (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and same in return. :) --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 02:46, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Good change. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  00:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Reactions section
The following is contested, on the basis that this is mostly in-bubble, primary sources, and is altogether UNDUE.

The movie was endorsed by young Earth creationist organizations such as Answers in Genesis, the Institute for Creation Research, Creation Ministries International, the Associates for Biblical Research, and Timothy G. Standish of the Geoscience Research Institute. Jerry Newcombe of the politically conservative website WND also endorsed the film, along with WORLD magazine. In April 2018, Newsmax, using a criteria of highest box office scores and making a "significant impact", rated the film at twelfth place out of its "top 25 conservative documentaries of all time." Patheos bloggers published positive, negative, and ambivalent reviews about the film, as well as interviews with key cast members.

Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Kind of goes back to why this should've been deleted back at the afd. The keep !voters kept saying that it should be kept because it's a movie and should be treated as a movie rather than consider the fringe subject matter. Then we kept it on the basis that it should be treated like a film, despite the fact that there wasn't significant in-depth coverage of the film itself (only some announcements/press releases/buzz published in local news sources). Now we have an article about a movie that we're supposed to treat like a movie, but we cite sources that are not known as reliable sources for film criticism. Unsurprisingly, it's an article about fringe documentary filled with sources covering it because they also promote that fringe theory, not because they're reliable sources for film reviews. If there's an argument to include this because they're reliable sources for creationism, etc. then we're not actually treating it as a movie. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 17:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The stated reasoning for the removal was violation of WP:PRIMARY, but I see no violation there. Our definition of primary sources states: "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." Almost none of the cited reviews came from someone directly involved in producing the film; the closest it gets is interviewing Snelling, who works for AiG. The rest are only "close" to the movie inasmuch as some of them agree with its premise, while others disagree. If we use this definition to categorize them as primary, then why were other reviews that share the same degree of "closeness", such as the BioLogos Foundation (which publicly disagrees with the premise) allowed to remain? Further, even if the few sources which could be considered "close" are classified as primary, it still doesn't prevent them from being used as they were. Per policy, "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." (emphasis mine) There was clearly no interpretation of any primary sourcing used.


 * Getting more specific, please explain how Newsmax and Patheos are "in-bubble" or primary. How about WND or World magazine? And before you say those two are Christian sources, note that nearly every source remaining in the Reception section is also explicitly Christian. That leaves only the explicitly pro-YEC sources, but even that shouldn't exclude them from being included. The value in including them is to cite the leading pro-YEC organizations to confirm that they consider the film an accurate representation of the YEC belief system. For a counterexample, see Kent Hovind, who AiG condemns for using arguments they consider discredited and not representative of current state of thought within YEC. And again, if you think this is not important, then why was it important to leave content from non-YEC Christians stating that the film is not broadly representative of Christianity? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 21:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * While many of the organizations in the paragraph Jytdog posted above advocate YEC views, they are still notable organizations and can thus be mentioned in the article. We could simply attribute them as organizations that promote YEC. Also, WORLD and Newsmax are mainstream publications so it makes no sense to remove those altogether. It should be mentioned that even with retention of this paragraph, the majority of the Reception section is still devoted to negative reviews of the film. Lorstaking (talk) 03:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem is WP:PRIMARY. We can't rely on a creationist group to decide the significance of their creationist take on a creationist work. They have a clear ideological commitment to the content, so of course they are going to say certain things about it. By reporting these from primary sources, we are effectively endorsing them as commentators, when their views are WP:FRINGE. Guy (Help!) 07:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, the problem is not WP:PRIMARY, as I discussed above and you summarily ignored. None of the sources cited – with the possible exception of AiG, as noted – are primary to the film under Wikipedia's definition of primary sources, and nearly half of the cited sources (WND, World, Newsmax, and Patheos) are not even explicitly pro-YEC. And even if the sources were primary, that doesn't exclude them from being used, under policy, as long as we don't try to make interpretations of what they say. These are the leading voices on the subject of the film, fringe or no. Are they really any less qualified to comment on the film than the Orlando Sentinel guy, whose comment was left in even though it tells us literally nothing about the film? If there were a documentary about the Church of Scientology, and it was endorsed by Tom Cruise, do you really think that wouldn't at least warrant a passing mention in the article about that documentary? As I showed with the Kent Hovind example, YEC proponents are not a homogenous bloc; it is noteworthy that they agree that this film accurately reflects their views.
 * All this said, can we at least agree that WND, World, Newsmax, and Patheos fall outside the scope of this objection and should be restored? We can discuss the rest if the community still thinks it is warranted. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 12:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I will also note that every positive review cited is from a notable organization, and some of them, such as AiG, WORLD, Newsmax, are especially notable. Also, while many positive reviews cited come from non-YEC organizations (WORLD, Newsmax, etc.), the organizations that do promote fringe views are still all notable in their own right (I saw some other good reviews of the movie that were positive but kept them out because they didn't have a Wikipedia article).
 * Also, as Lorstaking noted above, most of the section even with the positive mentions was devoted to negative reviews, and the negative ones were placed most prominently in the section. And while we included some quotes for the negative reviews, we kept all the positive reviews at a bare minimum, by only including the organization's name (and they were all notable organizations). So not even that was enough for some editors here?
 * And it's silly to think that it's a given that people in any movie's target audience will like the film -- several YECers (Kent Hovind, Walt Brown, etc.) have been strongly criticized by other YECers, and many Christians (the target audience) criticized the "God's Not Dead" movies. With this movie, at least some of the positive reviews were still critical of certain aspects of the movie, such as this one, and I saw this review from a YECer (who I don't think was notable enough to ultimately add) had a lot of criticism -- so it's not like the positive reviews didn't come to their conclusions in an uncritical manner. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 13:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's PRIMARY. X says Y, source, X saying Y. That's primary. X says Y, source, Z discussing X saying Y, is secondary. Guy (Help!) 13:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If that's the issue, then you should also have an issue with the Joel Edmund Anderson blog, Reason to Believe, The Gospel Coalition, and The BioLogos Foundation. How are these any less primary than the reviews by AiG, ICR, WND, etc.? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do. I also have a problem with Adventist Review, since the Adventists are a creationist sect. I don't have a problem with Christina Post, which seems not to be aligned to a creationist POV (could be wrong there). We should not be using sources that have a dog in the fight. Guy (Help!) 16:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, at least you were (eventually) consistent with this removal, although the entire reception section is now a joke, with a single comment that adds no information about the film by a critic who didn't see it. It would be better off removed entirely.
 * I do not agree with your broad interpretation of what can and cannot be used – and I'm interested to see if others agree with it – but at least for the nonce, it's consistent. I think, for example, that it's silly to remove objective, factual information – such as the location and start date of filming – simply because it was reported by a source that leans a particular way on the film's topic. It is not an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim, so it does not require extraordinary sourcing. It does a disservice to the reader by censoring non-controversial information about the film because of where it came from. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 00:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * These edits are ridiculous and utterly fail NPOV. Not only did they remove over half of the article's content (including good reviews both for and against the movie, but they also removed Paul Nelson's disapproval of the movie and the filmmaker's response, something notable since Nelson was in the film). Also, the editor clearly went out of his way to "show" that YEC is silly (by putting scare quotes around "creation scientists" despite it being a notable term and using odd wording and italicizing in the intro). Also, the editor did an obviously sloppy job editing, considering how many double spaces are in the article. These edits are ridiculous and are unacceptable -- I've been editing this site for nearly five years, and I don't think I've seen a more blatant example of bias on the site. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 04:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "creation science" is a pseudoscientific form of creationism. We have that not only from the scientific literature but from court findings of fact. I took this from our linked articles, because it relevant in context and people seeing this as a film article may well not be familiar with the fact that "creation science" is not science. Guy (Help!) 21:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC).
 * So because of that, you have to note it in the article -- of a movie? And even if it is to be included, it is worded and formatted very poorly. All of these changes in the past few days are horrible, and I support reverting entirely. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 03:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Whether or not a source is "notable" is completely and entirely irrelevant. See WP:N. That a source is well-known, gets a lot of traffic, etc. does not make it reliable. Anyone who thinks that Newsmax or WND is a reliable or mainstream source needs to reread WP:RS (or the archives or WP:RSN). Primary isn't the only reason these shouldn't be included. Being a reliable source for a film review is another, rather than a source that promotes evangelical Christian beliefs and thus would review a film about creationism on ideological grounds rather than because it's worthy of mainstream note. That's what I presume Guy and Jytdog are talking about by "in-bubble". Promoting evangelical Christian beliefs doesn't mean they're always unreliable, but it does mean their bias affects the extent to which their coverage of certain subjects reflects a mainstream scientific consensus and the extent to which they select stories (i.e. if it were a movie about how vaccines cause autism, a review from publications that regularly advocate for such ideas that have been rejected by the mainstream scientific consensus would not carry much weight and would not be viewed as reliable for covering such subjects. If it's a notable fringe subject, it has been covered by reliable mainstream sources; it it's a notable film, it has been covered by mainstream sources known for film criticism/reviews. WND, Newsmax, AiG, etc. do not fit either of these. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 16:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * First off, we're talking about movie reviews, not scientific papers or the like -- that kind of stuff is inherently opinion-based. They're telling the reader what they think of whatever movie they're reviewing, and the positive reviews (some of which came from non-YEC sources) are just as capable of that. And since when could only OECers and theistic evolutionists be reliable sources on what they thought of a movie? Also, many of the organizations removed do regular movie reviews (AiG, for example, reviews many movies, Christian or secular, and even some having zero to do with the creation-evolution issue, and AiG no doubt isn't the only such organization).
 * Lastly for my thought here, as I and others stated above, the paragraph mentioning the positive reviews was less than half the length of the paragraph listing negative reviews (and half of the former paragraph was comprised of positive reviews from non-YEC sources). That paragraph didn't go into specifics and really only mentioned the organization's name. Furthermore, the positive review paragraph had a less prominent place in the paragraph. It's ridiculous that it's somehow inappropriate to include any positive reivew (better termed as an opinion) whatsoever of this movie even if it came from organizations independent of the movie while allowing reviews (opinions) from OEC and theistic evolutionist organizations. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 04:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to make the case for deletion again? Because that's not what this discussion is about. You are more than welcome to open another AfD, but to keep this discussion on track, please confine the comments here to whether or not the paragraphs in question should be restored. If your argument is that the sources cited for the paragraphs under discussion are unreliable because they have a bias, then please explain how the sources in the remaining part of the reception section do not have bias. If the argument is that the sources cited in the paragraphs in dispute are not known for reviewing movies or qualified to review movies, the please explain how the sources in the remaining part of the reception section are any more qualified or known for reviewing movies. BTW, the only "qualified" movie critic in the whole section (i.e. the guy whose job it is to review movies) is included despite the fact that he, you know, didn't actually see the movie before writing the review we have cited to him, which sort of ignominiously distinguishes him from everybody else in the disputed section. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The standard on WP is not "reliable sources", but "reliable independent sources". AiG is not independent in any meaningful sense. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Even if AiG isn't an independent source here (and two AiG employees being interviewed doesn't equate to the organization itself being part of the movie -- after all, they could easily be, and are likely, doing it independently of their employment in their personal capacities), it doesn't mean the other sources have to do -- they're all independent of the movie, and ideological agreement doesn't count (besides, at least some of them did come to their conclusions critically rather than uncritically as the reviews clearly show). --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 04:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with 1990's guy here. Perhaps AiG is not truly independent of the movie because Snelling works for them and Wise has in the past, and both were interviewed for the movie. I think that could be solved with an appropriate in-text acknowledgement of Snelling's and Wise's connections to AiG, but even if we omit AiG altogether as a compromise measure, all of the other organizations in the disputed section should be considered independent of the movie. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Jesus H. Fucking Christ, you guys missed the grade school logic in my comment and now I have to explain it to you.... A creationist advocacy group is not, in any way, independent from a creationist advocacy film. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly. We should rely on mainstream press and perhaps those Christian journals that are not ideologically committed to creationism. It's important to remember that creationism is WP:FRINGE as well as objectively incorrect, so ideologically aligned sources should be avoided. Guy (Help!) 16:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * We can cite sources like that if we're recording their own recorded opinion on something -- and doing it all in only a single sentence is completely in accordance with WP:UNDUE. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 04:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No we can't, because they are not in the least bit neutral. We should not cite atheists or creationists when discussing this movie, we should cite reliable independent secondary sources who discuss the atheist and creationist reactions. That is absolutely standard Wikipedia practice, in fact. I don't know you identify as a creationist and you edit Conservapedia. You need to understand that Wikipedia reflects empirical reality not biblical Truth&trade;. Creationists are a fringe view even within Christianity, and creationist reviews of a creationist propaganda film cannot be included without the intervening context of a reliable independent secondary source to establish their significance and the extent of their bias. This is not the NYT reviewing a marvel film, it is a group of people who are waging war on empirical fact reviewing a propaganda piece, and we handle it very differently. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's called the "reaction" section for a reason, and movie reviews are inherently non-neutral by their very nature. Besides, all of those sources (YEC and anti-YEC organizations -- not to mention the third-party reviews also removed for some reason) are perfectly reliable and appropriate for citing their own beliefs/opinions on a topic (and that's what we're doing). We don't need to cite the New York Times to confirm that ICR enjoyed the movie or that Biologos hated it when they make clear themselves -- and all of these opinions were condensed into a few paragraphs (and it could have been shorter had certain editors not insisted on including long quotes for some of the reviews). Also, while many of these organizations (remember, we had several non-YEC or anti-YEC sources too) may have fringe beliefs, they are also large and influential, at least in the U.S. where over a third of the population supports YEC according to Gallup. It's not like we're citing flat earth organizations which only have a reach of a couple-hundred at most (not to mention that we're citing reviews and non-controversial facts with them). I think it's clear that the opinions of multiple YEC organizations (along with OEC/theistic evolution) are notable enough to cite in the article.
 * Since you mentioned my involvement on CP, I started editing the site nearly three years after I started editing here, and my main motivation for "moving" there was that I was sick of the anti-YEC bias by "certain" editors (in other words, you're responsible for that). I'm familiar with WP's rules, and I have tried my best to adhere to them, especially NPOV (my personal views are irrelevant) -- that's why my edits here on YEC topics are very different from what you'd find on a site like CreationWiki. It's problematic when you think neutral edits (which also avoid "false balance") are somehow "creationist POV" because they don't go out of their way to bash the belief. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 03:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Even in light of WP:NOTCENSORED, it saddens me that you've resorted to such base "discourse". I suspect you knew – or should have known – this would be especially offensive to your intended audience, and in the interest of WP:CIVIL, I would ask you to refrain from such in the future.
 * The reason I assumed you might be implying that AiG (which was the one you specifically mentioned) was "involved" was: A) An AiG employee was interviewed in the film; B) I find it logically inconsistent that "creationist advocacy" organizations should be excluded, while explicitly anti-creationist organizations are not; and C) I think it is acceptable under policy to report, without interpretation, the reception of the film from both relevant points of view, but not only one or only the other. At this point, even sources such as Newsmax and World, which to my knowledge take no position on the YEC issue, are being excluded. Most, if not all, of the claims being cited to these sources are far from controversial. Reliable sources don't always have to be free from bias. It depends on what they are being used to cite. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 00:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm going to break this down barney style because clearly there is a lot you're not grasping... The single biggest problem is that AiG is full of lies. They lie about almost every subject they write about. I'd be surprised if you could find so much as a bio on their site that doesn't contain at least one claim that the author knows damn well isn't true. So any review of the film is fucking worthless, because for all we know, the author hated the film, but since it pushes a creationist POV, said nothing but good things about it. That's why we don't cite acupuncturist groups for claims about the results of acupuncture studies. That's why we don't cite the flat earth society for claims about the circumference of the earth. That's why we don't cite anti-vaxxer groups for reviews of anti-vaxxer propaganda films. But we damn well WILL cite skeptical groups and vaccine defenders for those things, because skeptical groups and vaccine defenders have the reputation for fact checking that the advocacy groups don't have. In fact, those groups (including anti-creationist groups) are pretty much defined by their reputation for fact checking, seeing as how they spend their time fact checking the claims made by these sorts of advocacy groups.
 * In case you can't puzzle that out: There's no equivalence between skeptical group and creationist groups. The former tell the truth. The latter lie through their teeth. If that bothers you, too fucking bad, because all we care about are facts and verifiability here, and everything I just said is a fact which is easily verifiable.
 * Oh, and telling me that I picked my well-justified epithet specifically to offend you is a personal attack and you should damn well know it. If I ever decide to offend you, I'll have you frothing at the mouth and screaming at your computer screen before I'm done. Anything short of that is just me being salty, so kindly get the fuck over it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  03:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * MPants, what in the world are you saying? Your tone is not civil to any extent -- "get the f*** over it", "Jesus H. F***ing Christ, you guys missed the grade school logic", other vulgarity. Also, how in the world do you now that AiG and other YEC groups are "lying" (as opposed to simply being misguided, wrong, etc.)? And seriously? "because for all we know, the author hated the film"? And accusing Acdixon of violating AGF? Any person with a clear mind can see that you're being very uncivil right now, and how can we have an actual discussion with that? These are ridiculous statements that either reveals your (apparent) sheer hatred for AiG/YEC, or the fact that you're probably intoxicated right now (and if I'm wrong, you've done absolutely nothing in your last two comments to indicate otherwise).
 * But back to the actual substance of this discussion, you and the other editors supporting your position are failing to see the distinction between YEC groups and non-YEC groups -- in your zeal to remove reviews by YEC organizations, you removed reviews by a bunch of other groups (World, Newsmax, etc.) which don't take any position on this issue.
 * Besides, these are movie reviews (which are essentially op-eds by the organizations of what they think of the movie) -- being fact-based, objective, or whatever, is irrelevant to what they think of a movie, especially since we're not citing them for scientific facts or their beliefs on YEC (we're citing them for their opinion, which is allowed here). Also, as several editors pointed out above, many YEC people and groups disagree with each other, sometimes sharply (AiG vs. Hovind or Brown, etc.), so the fact that these organizations (which was entirely mentioned in literally just a single sentence covering half of a short paragraph, so WP:UNDUE is not violated) were all united in favor of the movie is something notable. You seem to assume that these organizations were all somehow involved in the movie's production and planning, making their reviews simple endorsements of their product (which is false -- and either way, there's still the WORLD, WND, Patheos, and Newsmax reviews which are not at all YEC). Of course, if you think that these organizations all "lie through their teeth" simply because they're YEC groups who disagree with evolution, you'll probably think they're all greedy closet-atheist capitalists taking advantage of people, or other ridiculous notions. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 04:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't state with absolute certainty that you chose your epithet – which could never be well chosen – to offend me. I said you knew OR should have known that it would be especially offensive, and that was – and remains – true. As you persist in this behavior after being asked respectfully to refrain, I'm interested to know how you feel this style of discussion comports with WP:CIVIL.
 * Now, allow me to work from your "barney style" premise for disallowing creationist sources; namely that, "The single biggest problem is that AiG is full of lies. They lie about almost every subject they write about. ... There's no equivalence between skeptical group and creationist groups. The former tell the truth. The latter lie through their teeth." This is an over-generalization on both accounts. Creationists indeed espouse views that run counter to scientific consensus; all parties involved recognize this. But we are not using a creationist source to cite a statement like, "The Grand Canyon was formed as a result of the biblical flood." This is why your examples such as citing acupuncturists on the results of acupuncture research or flat earthers for the circumference of the earth. We are using creationist sources only to cite non-controversial facts such as the date that principle photography started or the fact that prominent YEC groups endorsed this film. Only by looking at these sources through your extremely malicious lens can we arrive at conclusions like "for all we know, the author hated the film, but since it pushes a creationist POV, said nothing but good things about it". In AiG's case specifically, there is evidence to the contrary, as they have denounced individuals and works that promote theories that they consider discredited, even if those theories support YEC.
 * Your portrayal of skeptic groups as always truthful is similarly over-generalized. One example that I have seen repeatedly regards tax breaks offered to AiG's Ark Encounter attraction. Multiple skeptic groups, and even several "mainstream" sources, reported that tax breaks were being given by the state to help AiG build the Ark Encounter. This is factually untrue. Construction of the Ark Encounter was funded by donations and revenues raised from a bond issue; AiG received no tax money from the offered incentives until a full calendar year after it opened. Just Google it to see how prevalently the false narrative that tax breaks were used to build the Ark Encounter were reported. So the generalization that "creationists always lie and skeptics never do" is false on both accounts.
 * Further, the assertion fallaciously ascribes motivation. You assert that creationists "lie", which implies that they are knowingly and maliciously spreading information that they know to be false. I am not saying that is never the case. In most cases, quite apart from any objective truth of the statement being made, we don't have enough information to judge the creationist's motivation in making it. The fact is, no matter how far-fetched it seems to you, many creationists sincerely believe the doctrines they teach. For some, it is a matter of pure faith, without the need for factual support. For others, they genuinely believe that their interpretation of the observable facts better explains them than does evolution. Again, whether they are correct in that belief or not, it is not an intentional attempt to deceive (i.e. lying) on their part. If this is your justification for removing all creationist sources, I find it lacking. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ken Ham presents the Ark Encounter as "Christian outreach" when in truth, it's a for-profit business.
 * The formerly biggest name in American creationism served a 10 year jail term for tax fraud. He also has a history of questionable legal charges.
 * The Wedge Strategy.
 * Those three are just off the top of my head. I actually mention more, lower down. Want me to actually start compiling examples of demonstrable lying on the part of creationists? I could make a fucking career out of it.
 * Guy doesn't think most creationists lie, and Guy is free to hold that opinion. But I grew up with creationists. I used to be a creationist. There are still smugly arrogant comments about flying squirrels and eyeballs from me at the talk.origins archives. I know for a fact that creationists lie, because I've not only told those lies, I've been helped to craft lies and helped others craft lies. I've seen how people like Behe, Hovind, Gish and Ham (but not Comfort: He's the rare deluded sort) talk to young creationists who engage with skeptics and encourage them to pursue half-truths and use rhetorical devices to fluster skeptics instead of addressing their arguments directly. People who haven't had experience with these sorts of fringe views don't understand the mixture of dishonesty and delusion that go into crafting and maintaining them, but I damn well do, and I know how to call them out, too. And if Guy were to start piling up all the "exceptions to the rule" where creationists were obviously or provably lying instead of simply being deluded or deceived(you can start with just about everything said about biology by Nathaniel Jeanson), he'd quickly find himself buried in an avalanche. If even 10% of some group's message is a lie, then they are liars, and creationist claims are more than 10% lies. Meanwhile, if you've got to argue technicalities to come up with a single example of a lie told by another group, then that group does not lie.
 * Speaking of which, according to AiG itself, they used $62 million in tax-based subsidizing bonds to help build the attraction. So tell me again how all that money was used only to operate the park and how that technicality makes skeptical groups liars. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not say creationist groups always tell the truth, nor did I say skeptical groups always lie. I said creationist groups do not always lie – either because their motivation is not to deceive, even if what they are saying is false or because lying once (or even lying many times) falls short of the standard of always lying. I also said skeptic groups do not always tell the truth, because even if one skeptic group tells one lie, it is enough to falsify the statement that skeptic groups always tell the truth. All-inclusive generalizations are often impossible to defend, yet you used them as your basis for disallowing the use of any creationist source for any purpose. In your latest response, however, you also seem to acknowledge that your all-inclusive generalization is indefensible, as you cite Ray Comfort as delusional, but not a liar, despite being a creationist. You then set the bar (arbitrarily) for being a liar at 10% and assert that all creationists clear that bar and no skeptics do, assertions which are unproven and unproveable. Again, relative to this discussion, I'm not insisting that creationist sources are reliable for citing something like "Dinosaurs and man co-existed". I am suggesting they are reliable for sourcing things like the date principle photography on the film began (non-controversial) or that a creationist organization endorsed this film (which, if it is a noteworthy creationist organization, is also of value, since creationism is not a homogeneous doctrine). You are free to disagree with this assertion; that's why the question was submitted to the community. But if your justification for excluding creationist sources for non-controversial facts is, "All creationists lie" or even "creationists lie a lot", ergo, they are probably lying about this, I'm just pointing out, for the community's consideration, what I see as logical fallacies in that justification.
 * Also, concerning the tax incentive question – which I don't want to get into a long discussion over, since it's ultimately tangential to the decision at hand – you will notice that in my original comment on the subject, I acknowledged the use of bonds, in addition to private fundraising, in the construction of Ark Encounter, just as AiG did in the article you cite. But although the city of Williamsburg issued the bonds, neither the city nor the taxpayers were required to make good on those bonds if the project failed. They were backed only by the projected future earnings of the park. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The press is full of sloppy characterization about tax credits, period. All the press. People trying to build something need actual money.  Tax credits are not actual new money in your pocket so no, nobody can build anything with them.  They do often make a business plan viable that was not viable otherwise, and because of that and because of the validation of the agency that grants them, they help people raise money.  Even knowing that they are coming in the future can free up money to spend now. That is regularly messed up in the regular press and discussed like the government is actually giving money, instead of giving taxes back or not taking the taxes at all. Not an issue with the skeptic press per se.  And in the broadest sense as discussed above, they do help people build things.  Just a bad argument. Jytdog (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think most creationists lie. Some do - Behe, for example, cannot possibly fail to know that that what he says is objectively false - but for the most part this is about religious Truth&trade; versus empirical fact - creationists believe that if religious Truth&trade; is contradicted by empirical fact then it's the fact that is wrong. They probably know deep down that this is ridiculous, most of them go to doctors not priests when they are ill, for example, but it is a specific form of self-delusion that is different from actually lying. Guy (Help!) 22:00, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Despite having same view as JzG about the subject on creation science, I do find these content removal to excessive because they removed informative material that had to stay. I am not sure if reason as "primary source" was enough either. Raymond3023 (talk) 05:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Nobody is going to convince anybody here and some form of DR is needed. Jytdog (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

remaining reception section claims
Instead of this continued edit warring (it's now 3 to 2 in favor of removing the remaining claims), try making a rationale for keeping in "reviews" from sources that aren't reviewers. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  20:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's the "reception" section, not the "critical reviews" section. You don't need to be reviewers to have a notable reaction of the movie. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If there were no film reviewers who reviewed it, that casts serious doubt upon the notability of any mention of it. Regardless, the Orlando Sentinel bit is rather obviously not a review, but an announcement that it is showing in local theaters. It's quite a stretch to refer to that as it's "reception", even if the reporter writing the piece is clearly disdainful of it. I suppose the Newsmax bit is arguable; but I have serious doubts about whether a single "we put it in our top 25 [incredibly specific genre] films" paragraph is sufficient to support a reception section. I'd just tack on that sentence at the end of the "release and box office" section.
 * FWIW: I see that the AfD was close with "No consensus", but I can't see how this topic actually passes WP:NFO. My gut feeling is to keep it, but it doesn't look like it's really notable enough. I wonder if the opposition to deleting this was enough to effect a change in WP:NFILM. Thoughts? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Since the movie clearly passes WP:NFSOURCES, WP:NFO is irrelevant, at the latter serves only as a "backup" in case the former isn't met. Besides, the movie got a lot of attention from many different groups (including many which either oppose YEC or don't take a position on it), yet you've removed them, opposed any attempts to re-add them despite there being no consensus, and then pretending that Newsmax was the only group that commented on the movie. It's absurd to say that it's imperative that a movie article (that otherwise got a lot of attention) should have reviews from people who make a living commenting on movies, especially on a movie as controversial as this, where "professional reviews" would be no different than one from Biologos. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * ...the movie clearly passes WP:NFSOURCES...NFSOURCES is not a list of criteria: it's two comments on a different list of criteria, and I don't believe it's at all clear that it passes those criteria. And NFO is not at all a "backup". I'm guessing you get that from a very brief reading of the opening of that section, but that's not even close to what it's saying. It's saying that if it meets the listed criteria, then you can be reasonably sure that enough sources to satisfy WP:NOT exist. So far, we arguably don't have sourcing that satisfies WP:NOT, so the failure to meet WP:NFO is a problem. All of the non-Christian sources used in the article are used to establish tangential information through passing mentions: It's quite arguable that this doesn't represent "significant" coverage, and the Christian sources don't represent "independent" coverage. Note that I tentatively disagree with the notion of deleting this article, and mentioned changing the guideline instead to gauge reactions.
 * I would also note that two editors who did not make their opinions clear via article edits over this issue have now jumped in on the side of removal. That's five editors in favor of removal, and two opposed. There are a number of "remove" arguments presented thus far, and only one "keep" arguments, which is rather obviously contested. It really is starting to look like a consensus, just not the one you asserted in your edit summary. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  03:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You keep asserting that. It doesn't become any more true for those repeated assertions. The problem is, and always been, a near total absence of any reaction at all outside the christian fundamentalist bubble. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If a source is not known for its movie reviews and is covering a movie because it promotes a particular belief the source agrees with, it's not a real review and thus shouldn't be in the reception section. They are not reliable sources for statements of fact on the matter, aren't reliable sources for film reviews, and thus are only reliable for their own opinions (and not in the sense of the absurd "all movie reviews are opinions anyway so what's the difference" argument). &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 21:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Since we're only citing these reviews as their own opinions of the movie, rather than casting them as authoritative voices on whether you should see the movie, the fact that they're not "reliable" is irrelevant.
 * So, we now have to pretend that no one noticed the movie (despite the contrary being true) because you don't like the existing reviews? And this is a classic case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU, since you're implying that all these sources are YEC organizations. There are many reviews, from organizations such as Biologos which is as mainstream as you can get (just ask Obama), or from Newsmax (one of the most important and widely-read political/conservative websites in the country, per its WP article), among others. We condensed every YEC group review (and it's not a given that they'd actually like the movie) into a single sentence, and condensed every single positive review, regardless of the source, into a small paragraph. There's nothing wrong with letting readers know what different people thought of the movie if done rightly, and this actually enhances one's understanding of a movie. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * One of the two makes no comment at all about the movie other than to dismissively note that a creationist propaganda film is unlikely to arrive at the correct answer tot e question the film's title poses. The auther had not seen the film, and that is clear from the article. The other one is an unreliable source. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Biologos is not "mainstream". It is a Christian website that is very focused on a small set of issues. That is not a bad  thing, but it very much what it is; a niche website.  It is as niche-y in its own way as some atheist website would be, or as AIG is. The world is much bigger than any of those things, and when WP works correctly it is fully anchored in the big world and doesn't lose sight of it. Jytdog (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I keep seeing people -- not just on this page -- repeat an argument along the lines of "WP:BIASED says biased sources are reliable for their own opinion so we should include it". By that standard, we should include every opinion piece anyone has written anywhere about anything. That's not how it works. There needs to be a good reason to include the opinion of a biased source beyond the fact that it's talking about the subject. One good reason is when a reliable source talks about what a biased source says. Can anyone provide a reason why we should include these biased sources other than the fact that they exist, that they may be well-known within a particular community, etc.? This, of course, is putting aside the other issue of repeated inclusion of sources that say nothing of substance about the movie beyond what is provided in a press release, speculation, and/or quotes from the filmmakers. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 23:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Rfc
There is active dispute regarding the inclusion of certain classes of commentary. Guy (Help!) 09:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * &#x222F; WBG converse 07:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)}}
 * 1) Should reviews by creationist groups be included, referenced to the primary source?
 * 2) Should reviews by atheist groups be included, referenced to the primary source?
 * 3) Should we note the well established fact that creation science is not science, to contextualise discussion of the subject matter of the film?

Opinions

 * I would exclude material from ideologically committed organisations cited directly, but allow third-party discussions of how these groups reacted. This is not a Marvel movie, opinion on whether it is good or bad are going to depend largely on whether you are creationist or not. Mainstream Christian press is OK (if the publication is not wedded to creationism) but we have to remember at all times that creationism is a fringe view even within Christianity, and that this film is part of a long-running political agenda to promote creationism as a parallel to objective fact. For the same reason I would include a brief statement about the legitimacy of creation science, a term deliberately coined to give a false impression of legitimacy to religious creationism. Guy (Help!) 09:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Questions 1+2: As pointed out below, though I don't think the AfD close was particularly good, it did say there was consensus to treat this as a movie. As such, the relevant question is whether we would consider the source a reliable source for a movie review in general. If the answer is no, and it's only reviewing this movie because of a particular ideological perspective, then we should exclude them.
 * Question 3 gets at not just reviews of the film but analyses of the specific subject matter/content of the film. While we don't necessarily have to apply WP:FRINGE to sources about the film broadly, if we get into the specific content of the film, we would indeed need to use sources that measure up to those guidelines. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 16:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Question 1+2, reviews should be WP:INDY which means not "in the fight". Rhododendrites really nailed it here when they wrote: The keep !voters kept saying that it should be kept because it's a movie and should be treated as a movie rather than consider the fringe subject matter. Then we kept it on the basis that it should be treated like a film, despite the fact that there wasn't significant in-depth coverage of the film itself (only some announcements/press releases/buzz published in local news sources). Now we have an article about a movie that we're supposed to treat like a movie, but we cite sources that are not known as reliable sources for film criticism. Folks are trying to have it both ways.
 * Question 3, yes per WP:PSCI. Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I think that the AfD could be treated as factor whether we should be treating this as a movie or not. Should we ask the closure to clarify a little more? For now, I support the organizations in the article as they are notable and are connected to this subject. Furthermore, they serve as a balance to the review section that also contains negative comments. Lorstaking (talk) 05:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and if it's a movie, we don't consider advocacy organizations reliable sources for reviews. As an aside, notability is irrelevant to the reliability of sources, we have special guidelines for what sources to use when dealing with fringe concepts, and the "balance" you're asking for is textbook WP:FALSEBALANCE. This was originally intended to elaborate on what jytdog wrote, but with helpful wikilinks, but it seems he removed that comment in the meantime. I'll still go ahead and save. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk \\ 15:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * As noted in the discussion below, I feel the questions stated in this RfC are not specific enough. I support inclusion of non-neutral sources, on either side, to cite non-controversial claims about the movie. For example, this edit, among other things, removed the date and place that the film's principle photography began solely on the basis that it was cited to a non-neutral source. That is a disservice to the reader. I also think it is fair to summarize the reaction to the film from various creationist – YEC, OEC, and theistic evolution – and non-creationist perspectives, which was done prior to the most recent purge of information. Neither creationism writ large nor YEC are homogeneous schools of thought, so the endorsement or disagreement among these groups is notable. Any extraordinary claims – which would go beyond X endorsed the film or Y condemned the film – would, of course, require WP:EXTRAORDINARY sourcing, but the version that was purged did not appear to have such claims. Regarding the treatment of the term "creation science", I think the current treatment of the term is sloppy and inconsistent with what I have seen elsewhere on Wikipedia. I do not understand the import of the italics, and the parenthetical breaks up the flow of the sentence. I have long opposed the knee-jerk reaction to throw the "pseudoscientific" qualifier somewhere near every instance of the terms "creation science" or "Young Earth creationism" in every article, much less the argument that policy requires such a qualifier. Our users are perfectly smart and capable enough to click through to the article to see the thoughts surrounding these topics. If the consensus is to qualify it in this article, I oppose the present form of the qualification. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 12:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the article should include non-neutral sources from all sides with regards to those sources' reception of the movie. Doing so would not be commenting on the merits of those sides' views, but would demonstrate whether those sides believed the film adhered to their views, was proficient in establishing its viewpoint, etc.  That seems useful to the reader and doesn't seem likely to confuse anyone, so long as the sources are identified and (if the source names aren't sufficiently clear) their affiliations disclosed. Dbrote (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The only problem there is that there are no sources on the reality-based side that pass WP:RS. Literally nobody other than creationists has taken this seriously. Which means we would be presenting a review of a creationist propaganda film supported entirely by sources sympathetic to creationist propaganda. Guy (Help!) 19:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Can't you just say something along the lines of "Creationist group [XYZ] praised the film as being in accordance with their own biblical values and as providing an argument in favor of creationism, [transition] [non-theological components of praise (direction, etc.)]"? That would let the reader know that at least some groups think it succeeded in advocating their message and flag that their non-theological praise might be colored by their theological views? Dbrote (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Include the "non-neutral" sources (though reviews are inherently opinionated) and restore deleted info back to the status-quo version: These reviews are both YEC organizations, mainstream anti-YEC orgs such as Biologos, and organizations that take no position on creation/evolution (World, Newsmax, etc.). All of these reviews are acceptable under WP:BIASEDSOURCES, and not including them creates the false impression that literally nobody took notice of the movie, when in reality, several notable organizations that represent the views of roughly 80% of the U.S. public wrote in-depth reviews of the movie. WP:UNDUE was not violated since all the YEC org reviews were condensed in a single sentence, and all the positive reviews in general only took up a single small paragraph (more space was devoted to a single embarassing incident where one of the people interviewed came out against the movie). Some of the sources not cited as reviews, such as the movie's own website, are OK to cite for non-controversial facts such as when principle photography began. I agree with Acdixon with the "pseudoscience" wording -- we can mention it where it's appropriate, but it's smacks of POV and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS to have to mention it on every single article related to the topic of creationism. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 00:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Include Material from inside the walled garden should be included with attention to phrasing and to the ordinary danger of tilting the article by giving WP:UNDUE weight.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with that if there was material form outside to balance it. Isn't it weird that something so loudly defended has literally no sources outside its own bubble? Guy (Help!) 23:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There are quite a few independent sources, including coverage in general circulation newspapers, and in Christian media that is not inside this particular bubble.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * So people keep saying. Inexplicably, they haven't presented them. The sources outside the walled garden have always been based on press releases. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:ICANTHEARYOU -- Several editors, including myself have pointed to several reliable and independent sources that exist in addition to the reviews. Besides, we just had an AfD (the 2nd one) over this, and this RfC is not about whether the non-review sources are independent. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 04:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think sources like Biologos are "in the bubble" -- it agrees 100% with evolution, and its founder led the Human Genome Project and was appointed director of the NIH under Obama after two years of serving as the org's president. You don't get much more mainstream than that.
 * Wouldn't it be more appropriate to add your !vote under the "Opinions" sub-section of this RfC rather than this sub-section? --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 00:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * right. fixed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * No, no, and yes to the three questions above. Creationist groups are not reliable sources; Atheist advocacy groups are not, either. If any of their opinions are reported on by independent, reliable sources, then they can be included. Vanamonde (talk) 05:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * include and restore per WP:BIASEDSOURCES. This information is also helpful to readers who want to know what these notable people thought of the movie and give a broader picture of the reaction. If we have the right wording and give the right amount of space to each viewpoint, we will be in line every relevant policy. I am no fan of the movie or of creationism, but the bias I'm seeing on this talk page is making even me offended.desmay (talk) 00:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There are no mainstream sources. Again, per its about page, Biologis is very specifically Christian, and a specific bible-is-the-inspired-and--authoritative word-of-God sort of christian. We do not build pages in WP that are trapped in bubbles. Jytdog (talk) 04:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Considering that a sizable proportion of scientists believe in God, Biologos (which believes 100% in evolution) is not out of the mainstream. Besides, its president lead the Human Genome Project and was appointed as the NIH director under Obama (the latter while he was Biologos's president). You don't get much more mainstream than that. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 04:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep references and restore - I don't agree with creationist ideology, but anyone can agree that these sources represent a really large proportion of Americans (young Earth and evolution-related). I agree with the arguments on WP:BIASEDSOURCES, as nobody has pretended they were neutral or reliable. My Lord (talk) 10:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Include #1 and #2; for #3 Yes but not in lead: the sources should be included per WP;BIASED as others have mentioned. "Creation science" is relevant. A brief, single mention is due--but not in the lead. – Lionel(talk) 04:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

If you can source it, add it.91.235.142.81 (talk) 22:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Include for questions 1 and 2 there is nothing wrong with using non-neutral sources as long as we treat them as such, and WP:BIASEDSOURCES allows for this. Some editors here have claimed that the content made the article biased toward creationism, but I don't see this because most of the removed content was negative. The content should be retained. With question 3, we can include a mention, but the wording right now should be changed to avoid making a WP:POINT. Also, the cited sources for pseudoscience do not actually mention the movie, making it COATRACK. I support User:Lionelt's suggestion for how to fix this.Knox490 (talk) 02:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You appear not to understand WP:BIASEDSOURCES. Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. When the only sources are biased in one direction, we have a major problem. This is not citing the Discotute for creationist views on Kitzmiller, for example, it's a reationist propaganda film where nobody other than True Believers appears to have written a word. Guy (Help!) 07:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Another WP:IDHT comment -- just take a look at the status-quo version, and you will find that the biased sources are not "biased in one direction." In fact, mus the opposite, considering that so much more space is devoted to the negative reivews by organizations such as The BioLogos Foundation (whose founder, Francis Collins, was appointed by Obama as the NIH director while he was the org's president) and several others. Of course, Biologos (which fully accepts evolution/long ages/climate change/etc.) is probably some YEC org in disguise because they actually decided to comment on a movie that nobody in their right mind would ever comment on (Wikipedia's voice, not mine). --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 14:04, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * '''Yes to all", on the first two why should reviews be ignored just because they are going to reject the basic message? But we must also make it clear what the scientific community thinks.Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Exclude I've gone on record a few times as saying that I believe articles on topics that can't be covered in an accurate, neutral matter per a lack of relevant sources should be deleted. In this case, the question posed by the film's title has been discussed in great detail by professional historians for centuries, with a near-unanimous consensus that "It depends on what one means by history", but this film is actually about pushing a pseudoscientific view that has no relation to whether "history" means "stories", "stuff that totally happened in the past and wasn't just made up" or an account of the past. However, I know very few Wikipedia editors actually agree with me on this issue. I'm disclosing all this to say that if you want to disagree with my premise for essentially !voting Heck no! then you can dismiss my comment as representing the minority view it is and just focus on what everyone else says (and they seem to largely disagree with me anyway). Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 13:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note that I think groups whose only qualification for discussing this film are that they are atheists should be treated roughly the same as those who only qualify because they are fundamentalist Christians: the former are not pushing fringe pseudoscience, and obviously I personally identify more with one than the other, but both are equally problematic in principle, IMO. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 13:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Include for #1 and #2 per WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, as the sources were presented in a neutral way that did not show favoritism toward creationism, based on the diff. Wikipedia should avoid making a false impression that nobody covered this movie when reputable sources like Biologos and notable ones like the Newsmax did. They are not professional media reviews, but that is irrelevant here. For #3, include this for context, but I agree with others here that the wording could be fixed. Lorstaking (talk) 05:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, No, and Yes. If we do go the route of including creationist and skeptical reviews, then we should write it in such a way as to not imply any equivalency between them: the former are completely untrustworthy, while the latter are generally highly trustworthy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Restore sources for 1 and 2 - The reviews were from a diverse set of sources, and as users above also said, the content was presented in a way that is in line with NPOV, UNDUE, or FALSEBALANCE. Oppose 3 because including it goes against WP:COATRACK, mainly based on the sources showing that creationism is pseudoscience - they have nothing to do with the movie and shouldn't be in the article. --RaviC (talk) 10:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, so you think we should include pro-creationish fawning reviews and exclude the fact that the "documentary" is promoting objectively false claims that have been adjudicated to be false by a court, because otherwise it would be false balance? How does that work? Guy (Help!) 10:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like you're taking his comment out of context, since the false balance mention seems to be for his reasoning for #1 and #2, not #3. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 14:04, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 *  Yes, yes, and yes  per the reasoning of Slatersteven and Lionelt.  MBlaze Lightning  talk 09:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Never too late. I would say: yes, yes, and conditional yes - the diffs given by the other editors show that the content was not presented inappropriately, and took into account that YEC is fringe, based on the weight given to their pressure groups. Mentioning that it's pseudoscience is likewise appropriate, though it would be in the interest of NPOV to rliminate all the scare quotes and references in that sentence not really having to do with the movie.Raymond3023 (talk) 11:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion
The article until recently treated this film as a documentary, and handled the critical reactions as if it were a normal movie. Imagine doing that with Triumph des Willens. This is a propaganda film reportedly inspired by a creationist's daughter's exposure to reality based perspectives in the infamous Ham on Nye debate. One core problem is that of the walled garden: virtually all commentary I can find on this movie is either by creationists or atheists. Very few mainstream film reviewers appear to have watched it - it has nothing on Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic, IMDB lists four external reviews none of which is of any weight (one is a student who received extra credit for watching the movie). None of the usual elements of a movie are present here, and treating it as a mainstream movie article is simply not possible because the movie is proselytising and everybody commenting on it is either rooting for it or vehemently opposed.

We should not view this in isolation. This movie is clearly following the wedge strategy. It is designed to influence opinion and present non-science as science. It's available as a learning pack for homeschoolers. It bigs up the scientific credentials of the people interviewed, but instead presents creation science, which we know from dozens of intersecting pieces of evidence is not science at all. "Creation science" is pesudoscience in the service of religious creationism, and we have that in court findings of fact. I don't have a problem with people who want to believe in literal Biblical creationism. I do have a problem with trying to present that as a valid scientific alternative to evolution, because it isn't. You can't have a documentary describing the scientific evidence for young earth creationism, as this movie purports to do, because there is none, and any evidence claimed to support that view is by definition either cherry-picked or misrepresented. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old, life arose by random mutation and nonrandom selection, and this film exists solely because a few people want to replace these verifiable facts with Biblical Truth&trade; and have creationism taught in public schools. You cannot possibly view this outside the context of that long-running political action and the serial rebranding of creationism to try to get past Aguillard and Kitzmiller, and we have obligations under WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV not to represent ideologically motivated claptrap as a valid part of a scientific debate that in fact ended over a century ago. Guy (Help!) 09:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The sources that are still cited in the article (that even you said above are reliable and appropriate to cite) all call it a "documentary" -- we say what the reliable sources say. You may try to right great wrongs by "revealing" what the movie "really is", but that doesn't change what the RSs say, and your assertion violates WP:OR. Nice try, though, with the National Socialism comparison. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 12:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Please note that the reason the article treated this film as a documentary and a normal movie is because the attempted AfD resulted in a consensus to do so, and to keep the article on that basis. The closing admin explicitly notes that all seven of the delete !votes were based upon rationale substantially similar to your argument that the film should be held to different criteria because of its subject matter and many or most of the twenty-two !votes to keep were based on the rationale that this should be treated as a normal film, especially since it received coverage in non-creationist sources such as Newsmax and World (which, incidentally, have also mostly been purged by recent deletions). Your reviving of this argument for purposes of this RfC is done in direct conflict with the existing community consensus. Also worth noting is that the version that existed when the AfD was closed contained most of the sources now being objected to, quoted from even more extensively than they currently are, even after extensive discussion of what constituted acceptable sources.
 * Even in light of the guideline that consensus can change, I think starting this RfC from a position that the community consensus has rejected is unwise. This discussion should be held under the terms of the current consensus, or you should attempt to form a new consensus outside the mechanism of this RfC, which already asks too many questions for the discussion to remain productive, in my opinion. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * AfD is a discussion on whether to keep the article. "The community" hasn't made any determination on how the subject should be edited. As the close noted, "this is a film promoting Young Earth creationism, which we cover, with respect to science, as a fringe theory." The article before my edit of 23 May did not do that. Instead it combined a number of flattering reviews by creationists and a smaller number by atheists to weave an article almost entirely from partisan sources, with the judgment on inclusion or exclusion largely in the hands of a creationist WP:OWNer. I have no particular view on whether the movie is notable, I do have a view on using flattering reviews in fringe sources to make a fringe film look good. I have exactly the same problem with any kind of fringe propaganda, whether it's "chronic Lyme", antivaccination, homeopathy or whatever. We cannot treat propaganda movies for fringe subjects the same way we treat actual documentaries. That would be a violation of WP:NPOV. The main problem here is that nobody other than partisans appears to have written about the thing. I am still looking for what I would characterise as a decent source. Guy (Help!) 16:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of what AfD is. All your cited quote from the closer says is that we cover YEC as fringe; it does not say we cover this film any differently. The closer of the discussion also noted that the reasoning of most folks saying the article should be kept was that it should be treated as a film. That's the same as saying the community's consensus is that the film should be treated as a film. At the very least, we can conclude that there was NOT a consensus from the community to treat the article differently because of the film's subject matter. You may call the film propaganda, but the reliable sources, even the ones that regard it negatively, call it a documentary. By all these measures, insisting that we should treat it differently from any other film is special pleading.
 * You also keep saying the article is using flattering reviews in fringe sources to make the film look better. The extent of the inclusion of these reviews is a single sentence that lists the outlets that endorsed the film and acknowledges their slant, with exactly ZERO quotes from any of them. Additionally, there are two more sentences from three non-YEC sources (WND, World, and Newsmax) that note endorsements or, in the case of Newsmax, note its inclusion in a list of influential conservative films. How is this overly flattering? By contrast, four organizations are noted as providing negative reviews, with the arguments made in each review quoted, summarized, or both.
 * Finally, the RfC questions just ask whether creationist and anti-creationist sources should be cited in the article, but the relevant question is WHAT, if anything, they can be used for. We have removed, for example, information about when and where principle photography began, simply because it was cited to a slanted source. This is not an extraordinary claim and doesn't require an extraordinary source. Same with the endorsements; we aren't saying, in Wikipedia's voice, that this film is a "great film that totally discredits evolution", and citing that to some YEC organization. We are using a YEC source to say that a YEC organization endorsed the film. That's it! Insisting on sources without a slant one way or the other leaves us with a reception section with a useless quote by a critic who didn't see the movie just because he's a "neutral" source. This is a disservice to the reader. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 20:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hang on, it was you who said that the AfD mandates treating the article as one thing or another. I don't think it does. It only decides the narrow question of whether to keep the article. The subject of the article is a creationist propaganda film with no evident mainstream reviews or impact. That clearly has to colour how we cover it.
 * I am happy to discuss any proposed inclusions, but I am not happy about including sources that have 5% uncontroversial facts and 95% anti-science polemic, for obvious reasons. The fundamental problem, and I will keep cling back to this, is that the film appears to have been entirely ignored by everyone other than existing partisans in the anti-science culture war. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If you look at the AfD, many editors were convinced that the article should be kept because of the attention it received from reliable and independent sources, including reviews such as the ones by Biologos and TGC (which were obviously removed). Several editors believed those critical reviews from anti-YEC organizations showed that the movie received mainstream coverage (and even several atheists agreed that Biologos and other anti-YEC Christian organizations are mainstream). Remember, these organizations that reviewed the movie, whether theistic evolution, OEC, and YEC, are very mainstream and notable in American society (considering that about roughly 75-80% of Americans taking any of those views (and this is seen by the fact that many of these organizations have a lot of coverage in their WP articles). While these views may not be scientifically accurate, they still represent the vast majority of Americans, and as an American film, these reviews are not fringe. And of course, we're citing these sources specifically to record their opinions of the movie -- I think WP:BIASED is the corresponding policy on this.
 * Also, the "keep" !voters agreed that the article should be treated as a normal movie -- sure it was decided in an AfD, but a clear consensus was formed there nonetheless.
 * Lastly in this comment, certain editors have made ridiculous accusations against me, some of which violate WP:AGF, such as accusing me of being the article's "owner", implying I used arbitrary standards for which orgs to cite, that I used "partisian" sources for the whole article, and implying that I'm some creationist pov-pusher to discredit me through ad homineum attacks. First off, I don't "own" the article, and I know I don't. This article has changed a lot since I created it, and most changes were not made or initiated by me. I have accepted these changes, and (until these latest edits which made so many changes that we haven't even been able to discuss them all) I actually think they generally improved the article. Of course, as someone interested in the article topic (as seen by me creating the article--on my own initiative/time, I should probably add), I am obviously interested when others make changes to the article, but this is a far cry from trying to "own" the article (and no, challenging your massive changes because they are unconstructive -- and you did unilaterally change nearly everything about the article -- does not constitute "owning" the article). Second, I did not use arbitrary standards for which groups' reviews to cite -- I only cited publications/organizations/media outlets/people that were notable enough to have their own WP articles, since ther reviews were by extension notable. Some of these organizations have fringe views, but culturally, they are mainstream and notable -- at least enough to where their (united) opinion of a creationist movie is notable. I saw several other reviews by people/groups that were not made by people/groups that met GNG. Third, I added the reviews (which are inherently opinion-based anyway) in the reaction section, which is an appropriate location for recording people's reactions to the movie. Elsewhere, I cited reliable and independent sources, such as the newspaper of record of Arkansas, several detailed Christian Post articles, a Business Insider article that discusses the movie's significance in relation to the Trump Era, and others. The Adventist Review source, which was removed, was independent of the movie, and as I recall, was specifically endorsed by !voters in the AfD along with all the other sources I just mentioned. In short, this article is not "littered with partisian sources" as claimed. Fourth, certain editors are implying that I'm some creationist pov-pusher, apparently because of my personal beliefs and because of my substantive content disagreements on an article like this. Not only does this blatantly violate WP:AGF and WP:PERSONAL (see point #2 under the first header, for the latter), but this could not be further from the truth. First, I mainly edit political topics anyway, but on all topics, I take great care not to let my personal beliefs influence my editing (that's why my articles read very different from one on a website such as CreationWiki), nor do I try to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS as I believe certain other editors try to do. Of course, I'm not going to bash/mock YEC every talk page or edit summary comment I get, but that doesn't equate to pov-pushing. Please follow AGF in this discussion, rather than go on profanity-laced tirades or accusing opposing editors of false things. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 03:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's a challenge for you: cite all the reviews from mainstream organisations known for film criticism. I can't find any. To quote one of the conditional Keep !cvotes: "Jytdog's repeated argument is a salient one: if there is plenty of coverage but it is all in fringe-y publications, then referencing the lot of those provides a false summary picture". Three non-bubble sources were listed. One is not visible to me in the UK, one is a single short paragraph in an a long article about a more general subject, and one is an interview so not independent (and also in a minor publication). I am unable to find a single substantial critical (in the literary sense) review. It has zero professional reviews on the main movie review sites. And many of the Keep !votes offered no evidence, only assertions.
 * I also compared the article you wrote on Conservapedia with the one you wrote here, and the further I go back in the history of both, the closer they get. Conservapedia's mission is antithetical to ours. Conservapedia exists because a bunch of young-earth creationists cannot bear the fact that theearth is 4.5bbn years old and life evolved by natural selection. You also identify as a creationist. I do not think your perspective is anything like as objective as you believe it is.
 * And as pointed out above, you seem to be trying to have it both ways. You want this treated as a movie article, and then you insist on including ideologically biased sources because no mainstream sources cover it. Guy (Help!) 07:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Responded at the AfD. I will add that the articles still had large differences upon their creation (and I tried hard to make sure it met NPOV), and the similarities are not surprising considering they came from the same person. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 01:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I am sure you did think you were being neutral. I am equally sure that you failed in materially important ways. This is normal when believers in fringe theories try to write articles directly related to those theories. It's not evil, but it pretty much always happens - antivaxers writing about antivaccine movies, for example. Making "documentaries" with selective and heavily slanted presentations of the evidence is quite the thing these days for promoters of refuted ideas, and it's a real problem for Wikipedia because we get into exactly this kind of argument: ten notable proponents of $REFUTEDIDEA talk about it, hence it's claimed by other proponents of $REFUTEDIDEA to be notable. But per WP:NPOV we can't really cover propaganda for refuted ideas in a way that fails to show what's actually going on, hence we require substantive reality-based sources. Guy (Help!) 09:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I will just say that if the wording is biased towards the YEC position, then that can be corrected pretty easily. I am sure that MOST Wikipedians DO NOT believe in the Ancient Astronauts theory, but we still have a page on Ancient Aliens. TLDR: Correct bias if needed, no need to delete the article Kingdamian1 (talk) 05:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I will also add, that I know for a FACT that 1990's guy is biased when it comes to this, but correcting bias on such an article is a relatively small issue. I do not see a reason why one guy's bias should result in the whole article being deleted... We can just correct the bias. Simple Kingdamian1 (talk) 05:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agreed with you, right up tot he point when I tried to do that and found that there are no actual sources to allow us to do that. Nobody other than creationism promoters and a handful of atheist bloggers has taken any notice of it at all. The only sources outside the bubble are press releases for local screenings. Guy (Help!) 10:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There are several things here. First, do you want this article deleted because the film itself supports creationism? Do you want it deleted because this article resembles the one in Conservapedia? Or do you think that regardless of ANY of the above mentioned, the film itself is not notable to have its own page? Or is it a combination of these things? Now, this is purely anecdotal, of course, but I live in Canada, and the way I know about this movie is through my uncle, who actually is YEC, and he found it on Netflix in Canada. But do answer Kingdamian1 (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If you read the AfD nomination it is clear. The page fails WP:NFILM because there is a big hole, where there should be mainstream sources about this. What has happened in the absence of good sources, is that the article has been ballooned up with non-mainstream, non-RS sources. That is the problem here. All intrinsic to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 04:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The article absolutely fails WP:NFILM (on every criterion) but I would be happy if there were mainstream sources to allow this to be kept on WP:NFRINGE. Sadly there aren't. The problem is not what it's about, but that it's a propaganda film and the only substantive sources are supportive. We have several articles on propaganda films which have proper mainstream sourcing to show them to be what they are. I'm good with that. Guy (Help!) 07:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


 * i feel bad for the people who are going to close this. ack. Jytdog (talk) 05:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * For everyone's information, since the RfC template has expired and discussion has slowed to a crawl, I have requested closure for this RfC. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Creation science
Hmm a recent edit made me remember of this. Using "creation science" would be completely neutral as it would show that it's a name including "science", not a science (it's not the science of creation, but that was the claim). My personal preference would be always using Creation Science (also displaying that it's a name). Both however appear to contradict our manual of style, I think? Very similar is "theistic science". It's also obviously out of the question to insert "so called" before such instances... Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 04:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm with using the phrase as just that: a descriptive phrase. That the science should be placed in scare quotes is something to be made clear by linking it to creation science. We don't need to double down on making it clear that we're not treating it as a real science. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  05:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Good point, I agree that this distinguishes it. Interestingly, I actually just found a mini-encyclopedia calling it "so-called creation science". Face-smile.svg  — Paleo  Neonate  – 21:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Scare quotes or italics is fine, but plain text not so much, as it is authoritatively established to be religious dogma not science. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree that the term creation science is now generally accepted as a term of art and most readers will not confuse it. On the other hand, the term "creation scientist", I think, is misleading and I removed it in favor of the more WP:NPOV term "creationist". jps (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. — Paleo  Neonate  – 16:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Rejected versus incorrect
Because controversy happens. While it is 100% true that the scientific community rejects the claims made in this film essentially out-of-hand, they do so not because of some conspiratorial decision-making process but rather because the claims are simply not true. As such, I think it is important to indicate this. It is, after all, a simple fact that the claims in the film about the subjects outlined in that sentence are false. I included a rather nice source which explains, point by point no less, what is false about them. It is a post made by a graduate student in paleontology on a blog hosted by a professor of biology. In short, I think this is about the highest level of reliability we can hope for on a topic as obscure as this B-movie documentary. I'll also note, curiously, that both the host of the blog and the guest poster are devout Christians(!) lest you think there is some sort of atheist conspiracy going on here. Have a nice day! jps (talk) 17:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

ANI
I have raised the WP:OWN issues at WP:ANI. Guy (Help!) 08:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)