Talk:Creation Ministries International/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

CMI view overrepresented

So, the page on CMI seems currently a little skewed towards the view of said organization. There is no mention of the fact that their message is contrary to scientific consensus, and seems to pat itself on the back a little much. Changing. --Cid935 16:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it needs more about where this group stands and what the scientific community thinks about some of their claims. C56C 16:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I also would like more fleshing of the article; it also might be interesting to note that part of the reason the organizations entered into conflict is that Ken Ham's org wanted to be more popularly-oriented, and less rigorouos; CMI wanted more peer-review, careful checking, etc. (rigor).

tooMuchData

17:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC) <--(that's where the tilde's go, but it always says "too much data" and gives the date: so I'm guessing the system will autosign for me after this arrow--)-->

First round of edits

Okay, so I made some edits to the page. I took out some of the more marketing-sounding statements, and added a brief tidbit about scientific consensus, but this article requires a much more piercing rework. What do we do about all those unlabeled links that go to CMI's website? --Cid935 16:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice try, but the links provided were mainpage links that had no direct criticism of CMI, so not allowed. Also, the critical statement of the scientific method was obvious editor opinion, unsupported by the text of the provided link. -- 121.208.180.8 00:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

CMI-AiG Dispute

I am thinking of working up a general description of the CMI-AiG dispute that covers the basics without getting into to much detail. I aim to replace the sections in the articles for CMI, AiG, CW and KH with this same general description, an emphasising the link to the Dispute article. The dispute article would then have all the relevant information in one place making it easier for editors to update, and to avoid inconsistencies. The sections get quite out of date the way they are, probably because it is a pain to go around updating the same info in at least 4 articles.

I would be thus moving some statements into the dispute article that are not currently included. I don't plan to drop any statements, so initially the dispute article will be a union of all the current sections. Any objections? I'll drop this same "notice" into the other articles as wellLowKey (talk) 01:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Notability

Also, I'd like to bring attention to this topic: the "Answers in a Creation" group seems like an even further-fringe one with few who take it seriously, even among creationists, with a few zealous editors either as the group, or supporters, writing themselves into Wikipedia and into the pages of groups with which they have a bone to pick. On the discussion section of their Wikipedia page someone writes (and I respond below that, though note when I "sign" on wikipedia it never works correctly):

Um, does AIC meet WP:WEB?JoshuaZ 08:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
AIC appears to be a small organisation with a few supporters on WP - it is not even mentioned on large YEC orgs like "Answers in Genesis" (which do answer a few OECs like Hugh Ross). How else could a Christian org have "pro" bias on Wikipedia? This is why AIC is in a lot of "external link" sections, lol.

Yoda921 08:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Yoda

This is what I'm wondering: taking a look at it, they are not only a practical unknown, but it appears, they, or an interested party, are aggressively writing themselves into Wikipedia. enerally I wouldn't do this, as I like having comprehensive references available, however after having seen a few conflicts about notability on some other pages (Christian and otherwise), and the way that Wikipedia's policies tend to direct the expungement of unnotables, I would suggest the removal of this article, and the group's tampering on other pages. I don't think they meet the requirements regarding citations either (here WP:Reliable sources).
tooMuchData
18:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC) <--(that's where the tilde's go, but it always says "too much data" and gives the date: so I'm guessing the system will autosign for me after this arrow--)-->

Allegations of lying

Where this article mentions that the "producers have been criticised for allegedly lying" doesn't seem fitting. It would be best to show where the producers lied with sources, and not simply criticism for allegedly lying. DrFrankencelery (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Since I'm new to Wiki editing, I did some looking around for reliable resources. I came across the Wikipedia:Verifiability page and found that self-published media, including blogs, is largely not acceptable. I am removing the quote since it is from a blog. I'm open to correction if I haven't gone about this properly. Best regards. DrFrankencelery (talk) 20:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

General Comments/Criticisms

This page needs a massive upgrade! The content may have been originally slanted in favour of CMI but it is clearly not any longer thanks to "improvements". There is minimal mention of their arguments, publications, research, scientists ...

Also there was a quote from Darwin's something grandson (Great X?) about the movie being interesting but I cannot find it offhand.

What is highlighted is a legal controversy that sounds very unpleasant but which uses as it's proof a lot of invalid links, and in at least one instance a non-credible source. The claim that Ken Ham enlisted the aid of a former enemy is nonsensical on the basis of what is presented here. The link #9 clearly indicates he followed the general line at the time. This needs to be either deleted or fixed. I can do the former but will leave it a few days.

More later when I have time perhaps ...203.25.1.208 (talk) 02:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the legal dispute, most of the links have probably been broken since the dipute was settled (April 209, I think). (IMO, the claim about Ken Ham and John Mackay was mainly used to shoehorn the words "witchcraft" and "necrophilia" into the article). LowKey (talk) 03:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I felt that the main interest lay in the fact that Ham was willing to get back into bed (figuratively speaking) with somebody who'd previously made such accusations about the woman who'd later become Ham's wife. The specific claims are prima facie not credible, so their exact contents isn't the issue so much as their extremity. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The PDF documentation that I skimmed through read that Ham helped oppose the chap out. That being the case, and given no support is actually proven how is the link supposed to be supported. Delete this section I think!203.25.1.208 (talk) 05:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"CMI apparently regards AiG–US as now being willing to work with Mackay in order to rebuild its support in Australia, despite the fact that Ham had previously cut all ties with him over his accusations."[1] Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

If CMI said that somewhere then a credible source (primary or neutral) needs to be found stating that.

The above link is to a "credible source". If you want to argue the toss, then you're welcome to take it to WP:RSN. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

IP User, CMI did say it but have since pulled all of their own information on this. You won't be finding a primary source for this online. LowKey (talk) 02:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I shall clear out the legal section where the dead links are obvious and also make changes where arguements are unsubtantiated. I shall do it in two parts in the off chance that someone comes up with credible proof needing a revert - Saves totally re-editing.

As an aside this needs substantial fleshing out history plus controversy? What about significant achievements, speakers, whatever?203.190.201.96 (talk) 08:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Minor query - Where is the IP coming from? I just checked the log for 'my' history and see pages many I which I have nothing to do with. Is it a national gateway or something? Off topic but given that it derives from this ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.190.201.96 (talk) 09:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Another minor query is it worthwhile having the controversy in this page AND in a seperate Wiki page? I vote merge/delete the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.190.201.96 (talk) 09:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The separate page for the dispute (minor point, this is not "Wiki") was created beacuse the the dispute was ongoing, and details were spread across four other articles. I would recommend leaving a brief mention in the individual articles, with a link to separate "dispute" article. That way all the link clean-up can happen in that one article. Instead of link-citations, it may be better to go with ref quotes, as most of the online information was pulled by the CMI and AiG when they settled the dispute. LowKey (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The account of the accusations against Buchanan in 'Legal Controversy' is unbalanced by CMI's own response (already cited), which describe in considerable detail how they and many other interested parties have investigated Mackay's allegations in considerable depth and found them not just groundless, but completely lacking any supporting evidence whatsoever. In this context, the unedited page is close to libellous, and the organisation's response needs inclusion to retain even a semblance of neutrality. (Declaration of interest, I have written one article for CMI, but am not employed by them).--Cpsoper (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced POV additions

[ Moved from User talk:Hrafn. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC) ]

I (along with every other IP user) seem to have gotten a message from you. Most of the changes made to date are fixing dead links and a couple of other tweaks etc. Neutral point of view - In relation to CvE???? I suppose you mean like the NCSE - ROFL!!!! I think your own views are very much NOT neutral! The changes to date have been either simple proof reading that should have been long since made or a basic attempt to revert back to a neutral PoV. Quoting Anti-Creationists etc is really questionable, even if I have left them as verifieable albeit biased content. The page needs major additions as it is largely a brief history, and then objections and problems. In contrast the NASA page, yes just a wee bit of difference, has projects/historical achievements, aims, mission statement, leadership, facilities, and lots more. Of course NASA is a mite lesss controversial than the CvE debate! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.25.1.208 (talk) 22:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record, it is unsourced (U/s), and/or not even close to WP:NPOV, to state:

That "The Grand Canyon" is an example (let alone a legitimate one) of CMI's presuppositional position (U/s)
That The Voyage That Shook the World is "an unbiased movie about Darwin's voyage" (U/s, POV)
That Myers's condemnation of it is "anti-Creationists ranting" (U/s, POV)
That Journal of Creation is "a popular magazine" (U/s/POV)
WP:WEASEL-wording "allegedly" wherever CMI says something bad about AiG, but having them magisterially "dismissed" by Ham. (POV)

I would note that Myers, unlike Ham or Wieland is a legitimate scientist (not merely a former science teacher or former doctor) and thus a legitimate expert on the subject matter. If you wish to address his opposition to creationism, then the encyclopaedic language is "Biologist and prominent critic of creationism PZ Myers wrote". If I see this material reintroduced, I will revert it, and report further attempts to reintroduce it to WP:FTN.

Additionally, I would point out that the usage of creationist and other primary sources is excessive & in violation of WP:PSTS: "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

|I wondered what had happened to this. Okay responses in order (before I re-revert) The Grand Canyon - A reference to a known geogrpahical feature - Basic physics - Force Vs Time - In this instance either little force and long time OR massive force over short time. Contemporary examples could be referred to - e.g. US Mt Helens I think? It is intended as an example evidence which is interpreted differently base upon presuppositions - long age/graudalism/whatever Vs creationist. It is not one of CMI presuppositional poisitions it is an example of evidence affect by CvE presupppositional positions. Voyage - Okay U/s. In relation to bias however everyone has a PoV. It's neutrality depends on whether it is considered by an Anti-Creationist or not. There was a quote I saw quite a while ago that would be good, if I can find it again, that would back this up. It provides a neutral point of discussion. I did not say Meyer's condemnation is anti-Creationist ranting, though now you mention it, his article is. From the linked blog article "...creationist trash ... to tell lies for Jesus ..." Oh yes decidedly neutral! JoC. Popular Magazine? So what would you class it as, a scholarly publication, a research journal? Dream on! It's a popular magazine designed to entertain lay people with an interest in science. This is common sense not an U/s PoV issue. Allegedly. I believe that was the term used in the Australian article. Yes found it. Try reading the article! Either your interpetation of it is grossly different to mine or you haven't bothered reading it! Myers a scientist? Given his field is reported as evolutionary developmental biology I'd probably quibble. Yes he is employed in an academic institution, but so are secretaries and chaplains. Part of the whole CvE debate is what is real science. Ham and Wieland? No they are not scientists but what about Jonathan Sarfati, PhD in Chemistry etc. There are plenty of others associated with the org. but of course none that PZ Myers or the NCSE would respect.

Usage of Creationist sources excessive? I realise Wikipedia is not a scholarly publication, and does not want primary materials but I have not introduced any. Most of my work has been tidying up. As it stands this article sounds more like an NCSE propoaganda job than a neutral paper. Perhaps someone should visit the NCSE page and add in a few secondary sourced items from CMI, AiG et al. :)-

If you dislike the changes tweak things. Don't blanket revert. Even with my changes it needs gross editing! So reversion coming up... If you want to object feel free. I believe I heard something about a three revert rule and you have definitely violated that one by now. My own changes have been dead links, (now?) unsupported assertions, clarification and minor changes. If you hate them tough. Judging from your talk page you are very much of the NCSE mindframe. Unfortunately they are NOT a neutral body. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.25.1.208 (talk) 04:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I am largely with Hrafn on this (and that is surprising enough). You pull dead links - fine. You then pull the statements that cited them (or "allegedly" them out of consideration)- not fine. The statements were well supported and well referenced. I the links have died, then the statements do not automatically become unsupported assertions. The normal process as If understand it for inaccessible sources is to request actual quotations with an appropriate tag. Whether you agree with Hrafn's dot points above (I agree with 4 of the 5 - more surprises) you chose phrasing that practically ~~invited~~ demanded reversion. Some of your "tweaks" were okay, such as mentioning peer review, but I wasn't about to rework the lot just to include them. You can achieve factual but neutral wording. Whether that is accepted will be another matter, but if you don't it most certainly won't. LowKey (talk) 05:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thank you for that incoherent ramble.

You fail to dispute that the "Grand Canyon" example is unsourced.
Voyage is not "unbiased" it is creationist propaganda, from an explict Creationist apologetics ministry.
You wrote "has anti-Creationists ranting ... Ardent anti-Creationist PZ Myers wrote" -- clearly implying that Myers was "ranting" Creationism has zero scientific acceptance, so a scientist can legitimately label it as "trash". That they lie is well documented.
"popular" has many meanings -- the most common of which is 'enjoying considerable popularity'. In any case you need a source for the claim.
None of the material that you inserted "allegedly" into were sourced to The Australian article, so what wording it used is irrelevant.
Evolutionary developmental biology is a well-recognised field of study, so your "quiblle" is worthless. "Jonathan Sarfati, PhD in Chemistry" -- no relevance to evolution, geology, anthropology, cosmology, etc, etc -- so any "expertise" he might have is completely irrelevant. Why should any legitimate scientist "respect" this bunch of pseudoscientists?
I have not reverted three times with 24 hours so I have not violated WP:3RR. I will however simply refer your WP:complete bollocks to WP:FTN.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Actualy, the Journal of Creation is not "popular" in the sense of "designed to entertain lay people with an interest in science." That description would apply to Creation magazine. JoC is a peer reviewed, technical journal. LowKey (talk) 07:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

OOPS, that was a definite blue! Thanks for that catch LK. I think that's what I had origially but obviously confused in chat. Apologies about the 'rmable'. It lost it's formatting in transition. Obviously I should have put some <//br>'s in —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.25.1.208 (talk) 07:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Problems with the criticism section

This seems to be a relatively recent addition. (AFAICT it was added in late August by an IP, removed a few days later by another, then restored half a month later by Odd nature with edit comment "Restoring criticism section deleted by Sarfati.") There are several problems with it:

Criticism sections are generally not what we do in Wikipedia. The criticism is supposed to be integrated in the article.
Creationism-evolution controversy is not a "main" article about the criticism of CMI. It's at most a related article to the section.
The section consists only of one, short paragraph, and that one even continues a paragraph in the previous section.

I am trying to address these problems. It seems to me that the "Voyage" film is about as notable as CMI, if not more. (Not sure as I am living in Europe and neither is particularly notable here.) Therefore it seems logical to have a separate section on the film, instead of the criticism section. Hans Adler 08:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I have done the changes in two edits so they are easier to follow. (The first basically just moves the information around, the second adjusts the text.) One thing I didn't touch although I am in a mind to remove it: The "Trojan horse" comment is sourced to the "Lippard Blog", apparently maintained by Jim Lippard. I am not sure that it's a reliable source for this type of comment, and I am also not sure that the comment makes sense without (inappropriate) more extensive discussion of the context in which this is said in the blog. Hans Adler 08:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

His blog would be at best a marginal source (as he's more a general 'commentator' than a subject-matter 'expert'), and is probably given WP:UNDUE weight in The Voyage that Shook the World. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't this section of the "Creation Ministries International" page simply be a basic overview of what the film is, who made it and where it was filmed? As far as quotes go, they should be kept to the main page for the film The Voyage that Shook the World. Titling the section "Anti-Darwin film" is completely opinionated and has no references or backing as may be titling it anything other than the name of the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhepner (talk • contribs) 01:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I make somewhat of a hobby of Creationism-watching, and I must admit that the film flew completely under my radar. My impression has tended to be that CMI is less flamboyant than, and therefore gets less coverage than, their estranged Answers in Genesis cousins. The only mainstream media notice of the film appears to be from the BBC, so I would suggest that it is probably no more notable outside Europe than within (it does seem odd that an Australian film appears to have received no mainstream Australian coverage). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the lack of publicity is because it is a docomentary not a blockbuster? Most newspapers don't do movie reviews on those, not that I've seen anyhow. Also it's not an Aussie film. Urk! What a ghastly association. Apart from Cocodile Dundee have they made anything watchable? Oh maybe possible just conceivably the castle. But not much so the association implies its a stinker. Frankly it's interenationally funded and filmed. I'm not sure how much, if any significant contributions were made on the down under side. That you watch Creation Science is not a surprise Hrafn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.25.1.208 (talk) 07:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey! Some of the best movies made come from Oz (okay, some of the worst ones, too). I simply have two words. Ed. Wood. LowKey (talk) 09:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Expelled was also a doco, and it got quite a bit of coverage. Voyage on the other hands seems to have been all but ignored even by the more prominent creationism-watchers. "The film's dramatised sequences were shot on location in Tasmania, Australia." IMDB lists it as Australian. Priscilla, Queen of the Desert? Romper Stomper? The Mad Max series? ;) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Fringe Noticeboard discussion and tags added (22 Oct 2009)

Some concerns with content of this article have come up here[2] on a noticeboard. As such, I've added a neutrality tag to the page that someone can remove once the matter has a consensus there. I also placed a general issues tag for style and sourcing; use of so many acronyms might be confusing to some readers and some of the citations seem like near (if not complete) duplications on the same external site. As a third-party I'm not questioning the quality of the sources or the article as a whole, but think it should be polished and discussion done to address concerns.

My last issue would be the sole external link listed-- the official organization website-- which could be looked at under WP:ELNO category #2 and #19. Since it's also used as the cited resource many places in the article, generally speaking the two should not conflict to avoid confusing readers and might result in questioning under WP:RS or WP:COI; It can be difficult to establish something as an "official" primary resource and independent of high enough standard to cite at the same time.

Cheers~ Datheisen (talk) 12:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No.19 is specifically covered by the overall exception at the start of WP:ELNO, (WP:ELOFFICIAL). #2 has been alleged but not substantiated (or even properly specified). LowKey (talk) 23:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

After a quick look at the references, is there enough third party information out there to verify the notability at all? let alone have contentious material have reliable sources. I won't have time to look for a bit, but i'll try to look for reliable sources a bit later. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Although blogs etc are not generally RS, they can be reasonable indicator of notability. In the citenotes (presently, and what I can see at a glance), there are 3 mainstream news articles, an NCSE report, PZ Myers blog, Jim Lippard's blog, and a reference from "Christian Faith and Reason". These are not exhaustive. Also CMI is one of the world's 2 most widespread creationist organisations. Notability is not really an issue. LowKey (talk) 23:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Disagree about blogs: (i) because blogs often discuss the most trivial of topics (often repeatedly and ad nauseam -- if often also superficially) & (ii) because our notability guidelines require "significant coverage" and blogs are generally neither significant in depth of coverage nor prominence of the source. That it "is one of the world's 2 most widespread creationist organisations" isn't really much of a plus, because outside the US (whose operation stayed with AiG), creationism has very little profile. I've lived in two countries that are part of its coverage (one of them its home, Australia) and have seen no indication that they have any mainstream profile to speak of. The two mainstream news articles (The Australian & Allied Press -- I don't know what the third is meant to have been) are both on the Legal controversy between Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries International which already has its own article (or could be included in the AiG article for that matter). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I think consensus could be a little difficult to reach, unless you mean something like a 50:50+1 consensus? And of course the consensus that saw Bush elected as President is still not entirely accepted :) A permanent neutrality in dispute warning label might be the most satisfactory solution!

I've not looked at the Lippard content but Myers and NCSE are NOT mainstream. Not officially anyhow. Most Americans are officially Creationist (No I don't really think it's true but it's like most American's are also Christians ...) They are however hardcore Evo sites. And blogs??? Seriously I don't think they rate very highly in credibility, even IF the author is a credible source generally. CMI not mainstream? Since we are bring personal experiences into the discussion. I've lived in two countries they operate in too, and they are well know in some of the circles I mix in. I think third party refers to other than CvE debaters, though most people are involved on at some level, if simply on one side or another.203.25.1.208 (talk) 07:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

NCSE is most certainly "mainstream". Just take a look at the large number of prominent scientists involved in it. Myers would be considered "mainstream" on both science and creationism (if perhaps a little out-there on the relationship between science and religion, religion and atheism). Science blogs are generally accepted as 'reliable' (Seed magazine sponsorship & experts-as-bloggers). CMI's views have zero acceptance in the scientific mainstream. If the "circles [you] mix in" accept CMI, then I'd suggest that these 'circles' are in denial as to science. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Finally back to see if this still had the neutrality in dispute warning and was disappointed to see it go AWOL.

As regards my own circles they are a mix of science and non-science as well as academic and non-academic, and both Creation and Non-Creationist. On the Creation side it would include the likes of a nanotech researcher (who would have chosen astrophysics if it hadn't been faith based), physics teacher and a speech pathologist. On the Evo side a budding paleontologist and an agricultural department information consultant AKA librarian. Not all research based or even purely science focused but all very rationale and science based. Perhaps these 3 fields (physics, science education, health) are not real science?

NCSE mainstream??? Direct from their about page they are an "... organization providing information and resources for schools, parents and concerned citizens working to keep evolution in public school[s] ..." They are simply the mirror image of CMI. Worse actually. CMI doesn't want public teaching of Creation or student indoctrination but rather though provoking discussion - real science. Testing the strengths and weaknesses of each view. Naturally they think they're right otherwise they wouldn't exist. Mainstream? Hm checking the definitions ... If, like those who believed in the sun rotating the earth during the medieval period, they promote the most commonly held view then they would be the mainstream position, but not necessarily right. Given China is a communist/atheistic/evolutionary country and is the most populous country in the world it would be at least 1/6th of the world holding this position. It depends on the country I suppose. NCSE would be mainstream in China but I'm not sure it is in the US. Oh scientific mainstream? I guess it really just depends how you lsice things, a little like the whole Global Warming Controversy/Conspiracy/... I guess. Anyhow time's a wasting so ... 203.25.1.208 (talk) 02:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

As NCSE's position is that they support the overwhelming scientific concensus, I think it's fair to call them mainstream. Being the mirror image of CMI doesn't make them wrong; quite the reverse, really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.9.0.215 (talk) 04:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Section on the film

Jhepner's favoured version is essentially a whitewash, eliminating all mention of controversy, and any indication that this is a Darwin-bashing hatchet job, but rather attempts to present it as a neutral presentation of Darwin's life. It is clearly not an accurate WP:SUMMARY of the article on The Voyage That Shook the World. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It is also perhaps worth noting that Jhepner (contribs) is clearly a single purpose account. --Krelnik (talk) 12:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I had noticed -- this type of article does tend to attract them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The POV tag

Can it be removed now? I don't see any current concerns here. Auntie E. 17:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I think so -- the WP:FTN thread, that was given as the reason for it, was about a single editor edit-warring, not a substantive NPOV dispute, so I don't see any point in keeping the tag. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Citation format

The article has at least two citations formats. I propose converting them to a single citation template style. TheTahoeNatrLuvnYaho (talk) 00:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Problems with the criticism section

This seems to be a relatively recent addition. (AFAICT it was added in late August by an IP, removed a few days later by another, then restored half a month later by Odd nature with edit comment "Restoring criticism section deleted by Sarfati.") There are several problems with it:

Criticism sections are generally not what we do in Wikipedia. The criticism is supposed to be integrated in the article.
Creationism-evolution controversy is not a "main" article about the criticism of CMI. It's at most a related article to the section.
The section consists only of one, short paragraph, and that one even continues a paragraph in the previous section.