Talk:Creation Museum
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Slatersteven in topic Tone is biased. Sections of overview should be moved to criticism area.
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Creation Museum article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
 | Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:
|
"Creationusuem" listed at Redirects for discussion
edit
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Creationusuem and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 17#Creationusuem until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TNstingray (talk) 23:05, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Tone is biased. Sections of overview should be moved to criticism area.
editMove the criticism to the criticism area 2600:1009:B06C:BEFC:6C6A:F4E9:D77A:7CB7 (talk) 14:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- There is a longstanding consensus to use that word here. Theroadislong (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- Why? who says it is science? Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 24 June 2023 (UTC)