Talk:Answers in Genesis

The Ark Encounter section Misleading

There is a section under the Ark Encounter Section that implies Bill Nye stated it was "much more troubling or disturbing than [he] thought it would be" and stated that "every single science exhibit [at the Ark] is absolutely wrong." While he did state the Encounter was disturbing based on the given source, he only stated that the science exhibits on the third deck were wrong, not the bottom two. I believe this should be changed to state that he stated the third deck exhibits were wrong, not the entire Ark, as per the citation given in the article RSquier (talk) 06:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

You are right. I have fixed it. HiLo48 (talk) 08:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I just wanted to confirm with someone else on the talk page as this is a controversial page RSquier (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Clarification of sentence in lead section

The current wording says:

It advocates a literal or historical-grammatical interpretation of the Book of Genesis, with a particular focus on a pseudoscientific promotion of young Earth creationism, which rejects those results of scientific investigation that do not conform to their literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative.

To clarify, I believe this statement is correct. However, my issue with it is that it may seem ambiguous to some viewers, who may interpret it as:

...young Earth creationism, which says that it is right and science is wrong with no basis

However, this interpretation is false, as even though the basis of YEC is very unconvincing, it is still a basis: that the Bible, unlike science, is infallible. This basis is cited here by AiG themselves: and . I believe adding an explanatory clause, such as "... – on the basis of their belief that the Bible, unlike science, is infallible" won't hurt at all. In fact, it will both help the reader understand AiG's point of view and reduce the number of proposed edits to somehow modify this statement to make it more "neutral", of which there have already been a lot.

My edits have been rejected on the basis that "weakening of the connection between creation science and pseudoscience". However, this is totally untrue and absolute rubbish, as in no way have I made the legitimacy of creation science any more credible. My version still clearly states that the promotion of YEC is, wait for it, "PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC". Just in case any of you missed it: my version states that YEC is "PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC". How can you make this any more clear? My edits have nothing to do with the legitimacy of YEC, but instead focus on explaining what views AiG promotes, which is what this article is about. Please take this into consideration. ^Ol^Ja 19:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Please do not reinstate your pointy edit after two days. ThanksRoxy, the dog. wooF 16:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: Hey. What is the point in leaving a message in a thread that contributes nothing to the conversation? You claim that my edit is "pointy" and that I should not "reinstate" it, but you provide zero arguments for why you think that is the case. I know this can't qualify as WP:PERSONAL, but you are literally just attacking my proposal for the sake of attacking it. Very questionable attitude, and I don't really see what you are trying to do here.^Ol^Ja 19:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

@Oldstone James:. See this diff and then this one particularly the pointy edsum "Please see talk page. If I don't get a reply on the talk page for 2 more days, I will restore my edit." From this it is clear that I was merely warning you not to re-instate that edit, per your request. Try to keep up purlease -Roxy, the dog. wooF 10:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Change "which" to "and", and problem solved. -Nunh-huh 17:26, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nunh-huh: I've done just that, and I agree that the current wording is grammatically incorrect. Although I am pretty confident my edit will get reverted for pushing pseudoscience POV by someone like Roxy the dog or something.^Ol^Ja 19:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I support User:Oldstone James's proposal. It's helpful to the reader to include the basis for any person's or organization's views, rather than just mentioning the view itself. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose this use of primary source material to synthesise an assessment of the supposed basis for AiG's views: it's largely inherent in the description already in the article of literal beliefs, but incomplete as they also give other reasons behind their opposition to the science of evolution. . . dave souza, talk 18:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

@Dave souza: Great point, actually. Perhaps we should remove the 'basis' part and just say something along the lines of "– believing scientific views to be fallible, unlike the Bible"? That would then not be synthesis because 1) the statements that scientific views are fallible and that the Bible is not are distinct, and no deductive statement 'C' is not added (previously, this statement was that these beliefs are their basis), and 2) as you said, the biblical literalism already implies that these beliefs are one of the bases of the core belief of biblical literalism. What do you think of this version?^Ol^Ja 19:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

AiG is a reliable source for what AiG believes, so the sources being primary is not a problem for this specific case. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

@1990'sguy: I believe their emphasis was on WP:SYN, and I think they were correct in pointing that out. While AiG is a reliable source for what it believes, I cannot use two statements made by AiG to imply another statement, which is what I have done when I said that biblical inerrancy was THE basis for their rejection of scientific views. Either way, I do appreciate your help.^Ol^Ja 19:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

• The change does not, on the whole, seem like it's necessary to me. The current wording doesn't imply "with no basis"; it says "that do not conform to their literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative". That they believe the bible to be infallible is built into the very concepts we're talking about, and spelling it out creates something of a false equivalence (i.e. as though anyone at all thinks that science is infallible). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Rhododendrites: If it was indeed so obvious that biblical inerrancy is built into the concepts we're talking about, we wouldn't be seeing anywhere near that the number of editors that we are seeing trying to rephrase that sentence on the basis that it sounds POV to them. And it is really not stated anywhere in the lead section that AiG believes in biblical inerrancy, so there is no reason to assume that a reader would know that. Therefore, if you believe that this concept is so essential to the views of AiG, that makes it all the more important to add it.

As for the false equivalence, I honestly don't see any problem. The statement is NOT "on the basis of their belief that science is fallible"; instead, the core of the statement is "on the basis of their belief that the Bible is infallible", followed by a clarification clause "unlike science". Therefore, if anyone gets out of this sentence that most people believe that scientific views are infallible, they are misreading it. If I said, "he believes that the ocean, unlike the sky, is not blue", would that imply that someone out there believes that the sky is not blue? I don't think so. However, if it's only the wording that's the problem, we could settle on "believing the Bible to be less fallible than science" or something of the sort.

Furthermore, the current wording is clearly biased and bordering on emotional rant/false. "Rejecting those results of scientific investigation that do not conform to their beliefs" implies "all those results... that do not conform to their beliefs", meaning we'd only need to find one result of one scientific investigation that goes against their belief that they don't reject in order for that statement to be false; I'm pretty sure there is some such result, which they don't reject but may say it's not significant enough to disprove their beliefs. However, reading the sentence the first time, the first impression is that the editor was fed up arguing with an AiG member who would reject everything that they say, and they would spill all their frustration out on a Wikipedia article. And I'm not on my own - as I have said, there have been countless non-creationist editors (me included) that have issues with this wording. Without further clarification, this impression won't go anywhere, and so I believe it is vital to add it.^Ol^Ja 13:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Consensus of experienced editors disagrees, and me, so no. Roxy, the dog. wooF 14:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

First of all, there is no consensus yet. Two editors have addressed only a particular problem, which I have proposed a solution for in both cases. I am waiting for their reply, but I hope that my compromised version should already be enough to convince both, as it seems to avoid both addressed problems. Secondly, the consensus disagrees with what, precisely? I said that some editors have issues with this wording, and these 'some' editors come up pretty regularly. This statement is a fact. It doesn't matter what the experienced editors say: if there is a large number of people that don't interpret the sentence as it was intended then the meaning of the sentence is not clear or obvious. Experienced editors can't change that fact. And, honestly speaking, I can't see any experienced editors neither agreeing nor disagreeing with me so far. In fact, I don't see any editors disagreeing with me on this apart from you.^Ol^Ja 15:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Would you like me to recommend an optician for your much needed eyesight test? Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:30, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I actually think I'm fine, thanks. Another matter is you misunderstanding what I wrote. No one apart from you neither agreed nor disagreed on any of the statements I have made in the comment that you replied to. Therefore, you can't say that editors disagree with me on that statement if you are the only one that even commented on it. This conversation is meaningless and going nowhere. I won't reply to any of your further useless comments with the sole intention of provoking conflict.^Ol^Ja 19:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

More significantly, YECs reject Biblical inerrancy when it goes agains their theological interpretation – am pretty sure AiG reject the plain description in the Bible of Flat Earth cosmology, see CA662, CH131, and CH102. . . dave souza, talk 19:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I think WP:OR would apply here. What we speculate AiG might say about flat earth cosmology (which they've written about) shouldn't be a factor in this. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@Dave souza: Many issues with your statements here. First of all, even the users in the threads you linked believed that the Bible implied that the Earth is a sphere, so even they didn't contradict the principle of Biblical inerrancy. Secondly, these users do not represent AiG, and making that implication would be, as 1990'sguy has stated, WP:OR but also WP:SYN. Thirdly, AiG have clearly stated that the Bible is a foundation of truth of every aspect of existence, which is pretty much admission to belief in biblical inerrancy. Either way, thanks for your contribution.^Ol^Ja 19:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Threads? TalkOrigins Archive is accepted as a reliable secondary source on creationist claims, I've cited some examples from the index. AiG's statements open a can of worms, and the issues aren't as simple as you seem to think. . . dave souza, talk 21:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

It admittedly wasn't the best choice of words on my part, but the fact that TalkOrigins Achrive is a reliable secondary source (on creationist claims) doesn't take away from my point. AiG's views may open a can of worms, but that doesn't mean we can't handle them. The current statement is that AiG rejects all results of scientific investigation that they don't like, which opens an even bigger can of worms. Additionally, AiG explicitly states that the Bible provides a foundation for truth in every area, and also that science is fallible. What more can that mean than that they adhere to the principle of biblical inerrancy? I certainly do not believe that the issue is simple, which is in fact why I am opposing the simplistic conclusion that AiG just rejects everything without a basis. ^Ol^Ja 23:14, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@Dave souza: Furthermore, your personal opinions should not be a factor when deciding what to put in the article. You believe that the Bible outright says the Earth is flat, while many believers don't feel the same way. While I actually share your opinion that the Bible clearly says that the Earth is flat many times throughout the Bible, and that view coincides almost exactly with Babylonian science prevalent at the time, but this is only a justified opinion, and many scholars still disagree with this opinion. On a different note, what do you think of my modified version which removes WP:SYN?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldstone James (talk • contribs) 20:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Please sign your posts. Your links don't work, and are irrelevant if they're not specifically about YEC claims. It's not at all clear what your "modified version" is, and this section's turning into a WP:WALLOFTEXT so please start a new section to state concisely what you propose, and what secondary sources you want to use to support any changes to the article. . . dave souza, talk 21:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

My links seem to work for at least three editors. I think your connection/device might be a problem. My modified version is "– believing scientific views to be fallible, unlike the Bible", which avoids the problem of WP:SYN. I will start a new section shortly, though much of the cause for such a large amount of text were the mostly provocative comments by user Roxy the Dog.^Ol^Ja 23:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

References

If I had said "fuck off James" I would agree the comment was provocative. Accusing me of making provocative comments is itself a personal attack, see WP:NPA. Grow a thicker skin or fuck off. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Clarification of sentence in lead section (2)

The last proposal has become a WP:WALLOFTEXT, so I will be concise this time. My issue is with the current wording of the clause:

...rejects those results of scientific investigation that do not conform to their literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative

Issue

The issue is that this clause may imply that all results of scientific investigation not favoured by AiG are rejected, which is a fragile claim, as it only requires one result which AiG does not favour but accepts as valid, nonetheless, - no matter how insignificant. Furthermore, no basis for this rejection is stated, creating the impression that AiG rejects these results just because and may (actually, does, as the extensive history of proposed alterations to this sentence suggests) come across as POV to some readers. In fact, AiG does have an (admittedly weak) basis for their rejection of mainstream science, and it's called 'the principle of biblical inerrancy'.

References

Solution

My proposed solution is to add an explanation to that statement

...rejects those results of scientific investigation that do not conform to their literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative – believing scientific views to be fallible, unlike the Bible

or

...holding that the Genesis creation narrative falsifies science

which solves both the problems: the statement now comes to mean that AiG rejects only those results that contradict what they think are the views the Bible, while one clear basis is also stated.^Ol^Ja 23:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• this clause may imply that all results of scientific investigation not favoured by AiG are rejected - no, it states "those results of scientific investigation that do not conform to their literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative". That's specific and does not seem ambiguous. no basis for this rejection is stated - yes, there is. The basis is conformation to a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative. Doesn't need to be more complicated than that. If we added "biblical inerrancy" we could then say there's no basis given for that until we get deeper and deeper and define the nature of belief or religion itself. come across as POV to some readers - that some people say something is POV doesn't mean it's unclear (or that it's POV -- that's the nature of things like WP:FRINGE). Not trying to be dismissive here, but I still fail to see an issue that needs fixing in this line of text. (as an aside, FYI a ping doesn't work if added afterwards -- it needs the ping, on a new line, with a new signature, to generate a notification) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• That is a very questionable claim. The problem is that the current wording implies that ALL evidence not favoured by AiG is rejected, which is a claim that is both unsourced and, most likely, wrong (for reasons described in #Issue). Secondly, no, 'their literal interpretation' is not a basis. In this context, the wording really means 'they reject everything that they don't agree with'. Even if you believe it is, a lot of readers, including me, do not read it as such. Therefore, to make it clearer, we may add another clause specifically pointing out the basis, just to avoid any confusion. I don't see why you would reject this proposal - it's a win-win. If we add it, nothing will categorically change, and nothing bad will happen; however, we will make the statement clearer, at least to some readers.^Ol^Ja 12:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand why a solution has been proposed for a problem that doesn't exist. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• I agree. If it isn't broken, and I agree that it isn't, don't fix it.Doug Weller talk 11:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• The thing is: the problem exists by definition. The problem is that at least some readers that are not proponents or adherents of creationism, or even religion, for that matter (such as me and other editors), interpret this sentence in a way that makes it fallacious, and in fact this is how the sentence should be interpreted when read in proper English. Even if you don't believe a problem exists, that's not a reason to reject a proposal. If no problem with my proposal exists, I don't see why it should be rejected.^Ol^Ja 12:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@Oldstone James: please cease attempting to bludgeon your change through before you have obtained a consensus for it here. There is no grammatical error in the current wording. - Nick Thorne ^talk 10:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Thorne: First of all, the change was suggested by user user:Nunh-huh, and no one has objected his proposal. Secondly, this is not how Wikipedia works. If you are to make a change to the article, the burden is on you to start a talk page discussion - not me. Thirdly, I've explained the grammar mistake twice, but you either didn't bother to read the explanation, or your grammar is no better than that of a 10-year-old, but I really hope it's the former. Fourthly, even if there is no error, why revert my edits? My version is clearly also acceptable, and reverting other people's edits for the sake of reverting their edits isn't necessarily the best thing to do. I think someone might need a good portion of freshly baked trout. However, since you are clearly edit-warring and are on the brink of violating the WP:3RR rule, I will report you first.^Ol^Ja 12:04, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with WP:BRD. You made your change, it was challenged and so now it whould be being discussed on this talk page. If anyone is edit warring, it is the one who is seeking to impose a change without consensus, after it has been chalenged. Your understanding of English grammar is perhaps not as good as you seem to think, but regardless, I am not impressed by your battleground behavior as demonstrated in the above post. Please feel free to take the issue to AN/I, but you might not get the result you seem to think. I'll give you a tip, I have not violated 3RR and I will not, but you continue to push for a change that does not have consensus. - Nick Thorne ^talk 12:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually, on that same very page, it says 'BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes'. Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with the WP:BRD-NOT section. While I can't say there is a clear consensus on my change, all three editors out of the three discussing the change have agreed on making it. I have hence proceeded to make the change, only for you to revert it 3 times without any justification or even attempt to resolve the issue (and you are still not doing it). Now it is you who is challenging the (admittedly small) consensus, and so the burden is on you to justify your edits. I have already justified mine, and at least two other users have agreed, while none objected. Furthermore, you still haven't even bothered to read my edit summary, let alone address it. I appreciate your tip, but if you read my comment again, you will see that I have already figured it out by myself. Either way, we will see what the administrators have to say, and whether I 'get the result that you seem to think'^Ol^Ja 13:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension. The other three editors who have commented in this section do not appear to agree with you.

Not trying to be dismissive here, but I still fail to see an issue that needs fixing in this line of text. - Rhododendrites

I don't understand why a solution has been proposed for a problem that doesn't exist. -Roxy the dog

If it isn't broken, and I agree that it isn't, don't fix it. - Doug Weller

Where is your so-called consensus? - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I am particularly interested in James' response to this. There doesn't appear to be any wiggle room left, but we'll see. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Sigh. All these editors are CLEARLY addressing my original proposal, which I have since abandoned having not reached a consensus. We can still ask Rhododendrites and Doug Weller, but it is pretty clear from the context already that they were'nt referring to Nunh-huh's comment.^Ol^Ja 13:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Can't speak for Doug Weller or Rhododendrites, but I think you need to revisit the meaning of the term CLEARLY. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 14:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm saying I'm happy with the current text "...rejects those results of scientific investigation that do not conform to their literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative" Doug Weller talk 14:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: the problem is whether it is 'which rejects' or 'and rejects'. The version before Nick Thorne's edits, which is the version originally proposed by Nunh-huh, is 'and rejects'. See my edit summary for this diff for explanation.^Ol^Ja 14:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I was indeed primarily responding to Oldstone James's main proposal(s). If this is just about "which" → "and thus", I'm more or less indifferent but weakly lean towards "which" in the current wording. "Which" takes "rejects [science]" and applies it to YEC; "and thus" applies it to AiG as a result of its [literalism, and YEC in particular]. Either seems ok, though? I do agree with James that the wording that combines "which" and "their" is awkward, though, since it switches references from AiG to YEC, then back to AiG (unless "YEC advocates" is implied for "their"?). Maybe the easiest solution would be just change "which/and rejects" to just "rejecting," which manages to connect it to YEC without shifting the subject off of AiG?

James, an article like this can indeed be a slog to make even minor edits sometimes, and I dare say you'd have a much better time of it if you did take pains to find consensus on the talk page first and refrained from edit warring. As soon as you get into the latter, in particular, the substance of the edits becomes secondary to behavioral issues, and if you're trying to focus on the content, you'll find that shifted focus even more frustrating. FWIW. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Just saying 'rejecting' definitely gets rid of the grammatical mistake, but I think making a link between their belief in biblical literalism and their rejection of science by using 'thus' really helps the matters, as it adds a basis for AiG's beliefs, without compromising context. Alternatively, we could just reorder the clauses so as to put the 'it advocates...' and 'rejecting...' clauses together, which makes that link without even having to add any new words such as 'thus'. What do you think of that? I think it gets rid of my issue and your issue altogether.

To be fair, a minor consensus between me and two other editors was already reached; no one else has commented on the proposal of the rather insignificant change since, so I'd thought I'd go ahead and make the change. I do agree that it is better to find a strong, unanimous consensus first, but wouldn't that also - and especially - apply to user:Nick Thorne? Other than that, yes, I agree with you, but it is still very frustrating to see someone revert even the most minor of my edits without any basis whatsoever and without any attempts of resolving the issue. I know it's not the best thing to do, but I'm sure a lot of Wikipedians would restore the original edits just like I did, not bothering to waste their time on such a blatant violation of Wikipedia policies.^Ol^Ja 14:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of something else and won't be able to come back to this until later today, but this does not reflect what I said above. I'll look at the change in more detail later. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

And (thus) rejects vs (thus) rejecting

This will be my last proposal if rejected.

As it stands, the sentence is as follows:

It advocates a literal or historical-grammatical interpretation of the Book of Genesis, with a particular focus on a pseudoscientific promotion of young Earth creationism, rejecting those results of scientific investigation that do not conform to their literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative.

As I have learnt from my previous two proposals, any addition of what is considered to be superfluous content will likely be rejected. So, what about just adding one word, "thus", or even just rearranging the clauses without adding any new content? One of my proposals is:

It advocates a literal or historical-grammatical interpretation of the Book of Genesis, (thus) rejecting those results of scientific investigation that do not conform to their literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative, and with a particular focus on a pseudoscientific promotion of young Earth creationism.

This version links AiG's literal interpretation of Genesis with their rejection of science, and AiG have in fact explicitly stated that "in a biblical worldview, scientific observations are interpreted in light of the truth that is found in the Bible", meaning the reason they reject science IS the truth of the Bible. On the other hand, it does not add any superfluous content, meaning the sentence can remain concise and to the point.

One can also argue it is important to stress that YEC also rejects science, in which case we could say:

It is particularly focused on a pseudoscientific promotion of young Earth creationism, which advocates a literal or historical-grammatical interpretation of the Book of Genesis, thus rejecting those results of scientific investigation that do not conform to their this literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative.

Personally, I think this version addresses both the issues that I have raised and the issues with my previous proposals.

Important note: if you disagree, PLEASE also explain why, so that I can address these issues and hopefully find a compromise or, better, how I can improve on my proposal so that it is acceptable to be implemented in the article.^Ol^Ja 16:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Doug Weller said it succinctly. ‘’”If it isn’t broken, don’t fix it.” ‘’ Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Not an argument as per WP:ROWN. Please tell me how I can improve my edit so that it is implementable. If you don't see any issue with my proposal, I see no reason why it shouldn't be accepted, and nor does WP:ROWN. Clearly, it is broken in the eyes of at least a couple of editors. No unhappy editors is always better than two or more unhappy editors.^Ol^Ja 16:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support: This proposal clarifies to the reader why AiG believes what it believes -- this is not an insignificant thing. The "if it isn’t broken, don't fix it" phrase is invalid because the intro paragraph IS "broken" and needs fixing. It has several issues, and one of them is that it does clearly explain AiG's basis for its beliefs. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose proposed change. The second sentence of the lead despite James's statement above reads It advocates a literal or historical-grammatical interpretation of the Book of Genesis, with a particular focus on a pseudoscientific promotion of young Earth creationism, which rejects those results of scientific investigation that do not conform to their literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative. The important thing to note when parsing this sentence is that "which" refers back to the initial clause of the sentence not the immediately previous clause which being surrounded by commas is a parenthetical amplification of the AiG's interpretation of Genesis. Consequently the clause starting with "which" refers not to YEC, but like the clause within the commas, also refers back to AiG and their interpretation of Genesis. There is no grammar error snd "their" clearly applies to AiG as does the rest of the final clause. The sentence is unambiguous and there has been no good reason given why it should be changed, - Nick Thorne ^talk 00:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• "Which" here is a dangling modifier, with no clear subject, and could modify either YEC, the Book of Genesis, or the interpretation, hence the ambiguity. Furthermore, the word "which" is interpreted by almost everyone as modifying the preceding noun or the last noun in the independent (main) clause; e.g. Alice noticed a pen in her room, having just picked up a pencil, which happened to be large. No one will ever get from this sentence that it is the pen that is large. Moreover, the proposal is also adding a basis to AiG's rejection of science, which is not otherwise stated, or stated very ambiguously or only ostensibly (proof: many editors don't see any basis stated). Lastly, "no good reason why it should be changed" is, ironically, itself not a good argument in a discussion like this one as per WP:ROWN.^Ol^Ja 02:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Furthermore, the statement "rejects those results of scientific investigation that do not conform to their literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative" adds no information, because ANY view will reject all evidence that does not conform to that view; if you don't reject a piece of evidence, then that piece of evidence by definition conforms to your view. Your view may evolve and change, but it will always, by definition, reject evidence that does not conform to it. To make this statement meaningful, we need to state why they reject scientific evidence, which would then make this rejection systematic and imply that their view won't evolve. ^Ol^Ja 16:23, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• Weak oppose: Although it isn't my first choice, I would be OK with the proposed change if there was a consensus for it, but so far there is no such consensus, so my preference is for the existing wording. I have read the arguments carefully and I do not see anything wrong with the current wording that needs fixing. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:59, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• Even the grammar doesn't need fixing? Also, can you please explain what your first choice is and why it's better than my version?^Ol^Ja 16:32, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• The grammar is not broken, and does not need fixing. The meaning of the existing wording is perfectly clear. Please read the dangling modifiers section of Steven Pinker: 10 'grammar rules' it's OK to break (sometimes):

"Danglers are extremely common, not just in deadline-pressured journalism but in the works of distinguished authors. Considering how often these forms turn up in edited prose and how readily they are accepted even by careful readers, two conclusions are possible: either dangling modifiers are a particularly insidious grammatical error for which writers must develop sensitive radar, or they are not grammatical errors at all".

"The second conclusion is the right one: some dangling modifiers should be avoided, but they are not grammatical errors".

--Guy Macon (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Thanks for the link and the quote, and I think it could be useful in a lot of situations. However, the very next sentence of that article states, "the problem with dangling modifiers is that their subjects are inherently ambiguous and sometimes a sentence will inadvertently attract a reader to the wrong choice", and later also repeats, "a thoughtlessly placed dangler can confuse the reader or slow them down, and occasionally it can lure them into a ludicrous interpretation". As I have demonstrated above with the Alice example, this one definitely belongs in that category. Furthermore, this is just an opinion of one writer. This article contradicts that opinion. Let's just agree that a dangling modifier, which appears confusing to at least 4 users (me, 1990'sguy, Nunh-huh, and Rhododendrites), is worse than no dangling modifier.^Ol^Ja 18:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I still do not find your argument to be compelling. Also, please don't claim four support !votes until there are actually four people who respond with "Support"' So far I count two supports and three opposes regarding this specific change. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Never did claim that. Just said that at least 4 users agree this phrasing is confusing and should be changed, which is true.^Ol^Ja 21:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I've been told my comment above doesn't count here. No time to say more than I agree with Guy and Nick. @Rhododendrites: what say you? Doug Weller talk 18:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• Quoting from WP:ROWN: "Do not revert an edit because that edit is unnecessary, i.e. the edit does not improve the article. For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse."^Ol^Ja 19:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

You might want to carefully consider the contents of WP:BLUDGEON. I am not saying that you have gone over the line, but you are approaching it. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Thanks, taken into account.^Ol^Ja 21:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• There are a few different changes proposed here. There's the "thus" and then there's reordering and/or breaking up of the sentences.

The "thus" - Let's talk about it in the context of the current version. As I understand it, James is [partly] proposing adding "thus" like this: "It advocates a literal or historical-grammatical interpretation of the Book of Genesis, with a particular focus on a pseudoscientific promotion of young Earth creationism, thus rejecting those results of scientific investigation that do not conform to their literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative."

I would oppose this change. Without "thus" "...rejecting" is tied to AiG's "literal of historical-grammatical interpretation of the Book of Genesis". It's an extension of that activity. Inserting "thus" seems awkward. Like making a cause and effect claim rather than simply elaborating on the perspectives. If anything it's the rejection of science that leads us to call it pseudoscientific, so putting it afterwards seems strange.

The reordering - I don't see that the reordering of the sentences makes it any clearer, and in fact looks to detrimentally affect the meaning, at least per my reading.

None of this is to say I don't think the line could be improved for clarity, but after a few attempts myself I haven't found a better solution. Keep as is, I guess. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:09, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Quick comment: my emphasis is on the last version I have proposed, which imo is the best out of the four. What makes it better than the current version is that it adds why AiG reject science, which is otherwise not stated, and thus makes the clause meaningful.^Ol^Ja 22:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

At the risk of adding extraneous text to an already long section, could you specify which version you mean (diff or copy/paste)? I admit I'm having trouble following all of the threads. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Once you read it, you can delete both my and your comment to save space:

It is particularly focused on a pseudoscientific promotion of young Earth creationism, which advocates a literal or historical-grammatical interpretation of the Book of Genesis, thus rejecting those results of scientific investigation that do not conform to this literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative.

^Ol^Ja 02:00, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll go ahead and leave it for clarity on what in particular I'm responding to.

This makes the text specifically about YEC, as I read it, seeming to frame biblical literalism, etc. an outgrowth of YEC, rather than the other way around. AiG's literalist approach is furthermore not restricted to YEC. I.e. YEC isn't the only aspect of its literal interpretation of Genesis for which it would reject the science that doesn't conform. My take on "thus" above still applies to that part, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, that's an easy fix: replace "which advocates" with "advocating" and perhaps add an "and" before "thus rejecting"; I just thought you preferred it this way, as you said before that you like the current version specifically because it applies "rejects science [that does not conform to the literal interpretation]" to YEC. Also, "thus" clearly makes biblical literalism the basis for rejection of science, which is what you seem to be defending, so I don't see your problem here.^Ol^Ja 03:25, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Protected

I have fully protected the article for three days. Oldstone James, you must get consensus for any change that you make here, as it is obviously contentious. WP:BRD is there for a reason. Please ensure that this is followed when the protection expires. Black Kite (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Any? Even one that has proposed by users who disagree with me? Wouldn't that be an adaptive edit as per WP:BRD#Use cases?^Ol^Ja 16:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

You have two choices. [1] create a specific proposal and see what the consensus is for your change, or [2] Go ahead and assume that your change is OK without checking, make the change, and get blocked. Most administrators have a very low tolerance for someone who edits after edit-warring protection expires without a clear survey of participants asking if they object to that specific change. When in doubt, ask. If you have no doubts, ask anyway. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Not sure who to trust here. I want to follow your advice, but this sentence from WP:BRD directly contradicts it: "To avoid bogging down in discussion, when you have a better understanding of the reverter's concerns, you may attempt a new edit that reasonably addresses some aspect of those concerns. You can try this even if the discussion has not reached an explicit conclusion, but be sure you don't engage in any kind of edit warring."^Ol^Ja 19:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Let me explain what happens next

Now that the page has been protected for three days, everyone who has been edit warring is expected to calmly and rationally discuss the changes they wish to make and to not edit the article until WP:CONSENSUS has been reached. Read WP:BRD and WP:TALKDONTREVERT if you are having trouble understanding this.

Not to put too fine a point on it, everybody has to agree that we have reached consensus. Don't just make a count and start editing the article because you think you have consensus. Check with the other editors first.

What usually happens when someone goes back after the protection expires and starts editing the article without reaching consensus is that the person who does that gets blocked from editing Wikipedia.

The current version of this article is identical to the version as of 01:54, 25 February 2019‎,[1] -- the last stable version from before the edit war -- and per WP:STATUSQUO it should remain as is until there is agreement on what changes to make.

Free clue: In cases like this the person who posts one short comment with no emotion or talking about other editors and focuses on what the sources say usually gets his way over the person who posts the same argument again and again, acts aggressively, posts walls of text, or who doesn't have reliable sources to back up his preferred version. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I remember a similar conflict on a YEC-related article I was involved in -- the version I and some other editors supported was the WP:STATUSQUO version, but the same editors using that rule now strongly argued against it when they opposed the status quo, despite the version we supported having no issues that made it an emergency-necessity to delete. Respectfully, for consistency's sake, I recommend restoring User:Oldstone James's wording until a consensus one way or another is reached. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for using your witty 'free clue' as a way to express your opinion that I only repeat the same argument again and again, and don't have reliable resources to back up my proposal, and also for thinking AiG's website is not a reliable source for AiG's own opinions. Oh yeah, all that when you have absolutely nothing to do with the actual discussion. And also for supporting keeping a version with a grammatical mistake in it, which everybody (4 editors) but one confused editor has now acknowledged.^Ol^Ja 02:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I did not single you or any other editor out. As for the other, propose the exact change you want (no, I am not going to go back and reread the entire talk page) and ask if anyone objects. If there is a clear consensus for it, I will ask an admin to make the change. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)