Jump to content

Talk:Leonard R. Brand/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Compare the Leonard R. Brand article August 4 with August 9

Here is what the article looked like when it was first nominated for deletion on August 4, 2011. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leonard_R._Brand&diff=442966291&oldid=442862123

Of course, here is what it looks like, today: Leonard R. Brand

Some informal statistics:

  1. There have been over 200 edits in the last six days.
  2. On August 4, the text count for the body of the article, including the lead = about 150 words
  3. On August 9, the text count for the body of the article, including the lead = about 950 words
  4. The Selected Bibliography section has not changed. I has 9 entries.
  5. The See Also section has changed from 1 to 3 on its list.
  6. On August 4, the list of references = 5.
  7. On August 9, the list of references = 21
  8. Six editors have contributed to the article since its nomination and two bots.
  9. Of the six, two have contributed the vast majority of the edits.
  10. Of the two most active editors, one has added most of the new material to the article while the other has provided critical review and advice.

These are just the basics.

Some reflection on the data:

Edit count includes everything including minor edits
Word count importance depends on the quality of the writing.
The references section count depends on the quality of the sources included.
The text is being actively edited currently.

I have also placed this info on the article's AfD page. More later DonaldRichardSands (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

To Do List

Comments: on this list are welcomed. Please include them in the next section. You may add more things to do here.

Notability: Find and include more secondary sources especially those which further establish Brand's notability, i.e.

  • WP notability policy says: "Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded".[1] Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary. "
  • Notice the need for judgment, thus consensus:
  1. It should be "worthy of notice"
  2. It should be significant
  3. It should be interesting, or
  4. It should be unusual enough to deserve attention or be recorded.

Look for secondary sources which establish these aspects of Brand's notability:

  1. Unassuming and non-confrontational manner? Lockley, Wise, Toumey
  2. The admiration his peers have expressed for him? Lockley, Wise, Toumey, Hoope,
  3. Respect in both communities? Toumey, Lockley
  4. His role in elevating the status of the biology department?
  5. One of the foremost researching scientist authors in SDA Church? Andrews University Press promotional paragraph for the book. (a disputed source)

More to come DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

"Notability Within The Seventh-day Adventist Church"?

Should we likewise conclude that Phillip E. Johnson and J. P. Moreland are 'notable' "Within The Seventh-day Adventist Church", in spite of not actually even being members of that church? Kindly cease and desist adding POV-pushing section titles -- titles should summarise the section, not WP:EDITORIALise it.

Interesting company that Baldwin places Brand in -- and hardly company that lends credibility to claims that he is a "respectable" scientist. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

  • The purpose of the section is to show the Relationship that the Church and Brand have. We don't have to agree with it. But Baldwin's statement is quite useful in showing the relationship. In this section, Brand's notability is not based on his science but on how Baldwin, speaking for the church, has high hopes for the church to be realized from Brand's research. Please leave my edit alone. You want this article deleted and you are the only one in edit conflict with me. I consider you in Conflict of Interest. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 04:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • But such a brief mention (along with non-church members) in a WP:PRIMARY source does not establish a substantive relationship. How many other people were mentioned in that 90-odd page document? How on earth does a single sentence in it (from somebody who has co-written material with Brand) establish notability? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

#Hrafn: Please do not change my work while developing this article

Hrafn, I am addressing my concern here because the conflict resolution policy says that this should be done. This is the first time I am asking for dispute resolution help. It is concerning the Leonard R. Brand article. You have nominated it for deletion and I have been seeking to improve the article. You are very knowledgeable about the rules but you mess with my attempts to improve the article. I suggest that you be asked to either not revert anything and just keep adding tags like you do or that you be asked to leave me alone for a week or two so I can develop my approach to the article. As you may have noticed, I am working night and day and putting lots of hours of research and thinking to improve the article. Your ideas are helpful but your drastic reverts are undermining my efforts. You are the only one who critically edits my work; I like that. But, I don't like the constant taking away of source material. They are hard to resource again. Other editors who have worked with you have expressed how difficult it is to work with you. On editor even called you a bully. I have defended you, but right now I understand why the word bully was used. It is plain hard. I work for hours on one paragraph. I put the paragraph in. Then you mess with it. When I try to fix what you have done, it is impossible to do it quickly. Since you nominated the article for deletion and you are the only one in edit conflict with me, you should not be allowed to undermine my efforts to save the article. It is very frustrating. We need some help. After we have discussed matters here, if I cannot get some relief from your aggressive editing, I must seek help. I think we can work together, but don't change my edits. Advise me, cajole me, but don't keep changing what I am doing. I need a week or two to build the article. If you keep advising me during that time, the article will continue to develop into the good article it can become. Let's discuss this. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 03:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


DRS, you have been engaged in:

  1. Pervasive and biased WP:EDITORIALising and WP:Original research
  2. Addition of un-WP:Verifiable claims
  3. Quote mining
  4. Exaggeration and WP:Synthesis of sources

When I have tagged this material and explained my concerns here on talk (see for example #More dubious claims in the lead above), you have mostly either ignored my concerns, or at most simply made superficial modifications that do not address the core of them. I have therefore removed the offending content -- as is perfectly acceptable practice per WP:BRD. Your demand that I "not change [your] work while developing this article" is in violation of WP:OWNERSHIP, and an unreasonable expectation that I would accept widespread violation of core policies. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

  • I am asking you to give me some time to develop the article. I don't own it. However, I have put hours and hours finding new material for the article and you have only criticized and changed things. I agree that we could have discussed things more. However, what would be so wrong to just leave me alone for a while, as far as changing things, just let me develop things. Your criticism is great. The article is far better because of your criticism. But I need you to not mess with what I am putting into the work. You want this article deleted. Your are in conflict of interest, in my opinion. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 04:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • DRS: nobody expects additions to be perfect. However, there is a reasonable expectation that all additions will be compliant with WP:V (including WP:RS), WP:NOR & WP:NPOV. Your additions, all too frequently have been non-compliant with these core policies. Non-compliant material can, and frequently will, be removed. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Already rebutted: "As the AfD nominator, I have a reasonable interest in preventing the [lack of] notability of this topic form being obfuscated by its being larded up with unsourced, poorly-sourced, exaggerated, irrelevant and/or trivial material. An AfD neither gains an article's defenders WP:OWNERSHIP of it, nor obviates applicable policy." HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Of course you have the right to edit the article. And do all the things mentioned in the quote. It is just that we disagree so strongly that we will probably need a third party neutral admin to help us proceed. The article is up for deletion for particular reasons. It is under some kind of time frame, I suppose. Now that I have taken on this interest to save the article, I feel under the pressure of time to develop it. It is vastly more developed than it was six or seven days ago. I have only just begun to find scientific material and creationist or religious material. There is lots of stuff about Brand. So, the article is under the gun to be deleted; you have been strongly changing things which I don't yet agree with. Why can't my request work? Why can't you become my mentor. Let me try to save the article my way (I am the only one trying to save it) and coach me. You could accomplish your quoted tasks above (which seems an awful lot like ownership on your part, we both have an apparent vested interest in this article; that is what makes articles improve) and I would learn by doing from you. You know, if we got paid for the amount of time we spend improving Wikipedia we could quit our day jobs. lol I enjoy the scholarly pursuit available here. I presume you do too. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 05:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Hrafn, you want the article deleted. Why don't you leave the article alone and let the admins to assess things in their time. If they decide to delete the article, then everything is solved, IMO. If they decide to not delete the article, you will have plenty of time, the rest of your life, to bring your criticism to bear on the article. But how can you say delete the article and then so aggressively edit conflict it. You want it deleted and you want it saved, both. What other reason is there to get involved in an article except to make it respectable? Why would someone who initiates the deletion process seek to edit the article to try to save it? It doesn't make sense. We have an edit conflict. I want to improve the article and save it from deletion? Do you want to improve the article and save it from deletion? We have to work together better. Let me do the edits. Criticize my work. Let me make changes based on your criticism. You be the critic, loud and harsh if you want, but give me some space to learn and gradually follow your advice. I have really learned from you, but this messing with my hard earned paragraphs is too frustrating. If you can't understand what I am saying, then we need a neutral admin to guide us. We need help. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 04:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • As the AfD nominator, I have a reasonable interest in preventing the [lack of] notability of this topic form being obfuscated by its being larded up with unsourced, poorly-sourced, exaggerated, irrelevant and/or trivial material. An AfD neither gains an article's defenders WP:OWNERSHIP of it, nor obviates applicable policy. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't see the connection. You want it deleted and so you want the article to maintain its notability? If we look back over the critical support you have given this article, you have helped to improve it considerably. Why can't we work together. You are not providing any new material, I am. You care about the topics, creationism and science, I presume. Guide me. Show where the notability of Brand, creationism, and/or science are being short changed and I will gladly work with you to shape things. But your cuts and changes are to drastic, I can't follow you. I often don't agree with your thinking and there is so much more info to be included, I have only begun. But, I ask that you be the critic, help with ideas on how to fix things and then leave the fixing of the info I have added to me. You be the critic. I really am a quick learner, though it may not seem that way. Please don't change what I edit. Give me counsel and let me fuss with you, learn from you, and I believe that with the two of us working on the article in this fashion it will not only be saved but will be a model how hard-nosed collaboration can work. People are watching our dispute, you and I, and if we can smooth out a plan of action, it will be quite a thing. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 05:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The tactic that you're engaging in has a long history at AfDs -- and can reasonably be described as 'throw everything at the wall and see what sticks' -- adding large amounts of, often highly questionable, material. The obvious opposing tactic is to 'take a water-blaster to the wall and see what washes off' -- testing this material for how solidly sourced it is (both how accurately it reflects the source, and how reliable the source itself is). This sort of thing routinely happens at AfDs. If you don't want your material removed -- then check it more thoroughly first. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • It may look like a tactic as you describe but it isn't. I give lots of thought to what I put in. Why would I spend hour developing one paragraph just do save some silly article. I am convinced that I can demonstrate that notability of Brand. If you want to see how I do things when I get this intense in my work look at the Graham Maxwell article. Its not perfect. The article about him was not up for deletion. Yet, I think I am responsible for most the citations on that article. User:CactusWriter discussed with me quite toughly at times. I had some naive notions which he helped me face. I came into Wikipedia with a skewed bias for primary sources. I didn't want use secondary sources much at all. I have changed on that. Oh, another article I worked on is Letitia Yeomans. Her article was not developed much at all. Again, it got more material and that material got fixed. Not all of it is up to par. My strong point is finding sources for articles. I love the investigative work and I do use my limited judgment before deciding to include material. You must Assume Good Faith because it seems that I am gaming the system, but I am not. I am honestly trying to be helpful. We are obviously in disagreement: I think the article should be kept, you think it should be deleted. But, we have worked together and the article is better for it, IMO. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 06:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I did not state that you are consciously engaging in the tactic DRS, nor that you are one of the worst offenders (the worst have a nasty habit of citing obscure and difficult-to-reach sources sight unseen). I would however be blind not to see some parallels. A WP:AGF view would be to put it down to a surfeit of enthusiasm for rescuing the article. Regardless, the sensible and ethical contrary tactic is to test (to destruction where necessary) the solidity of the additions. This is what I'm doing. I generally do it to some extent in all AfDs I participate in (either 'delete' !vote or 'keep'), but especially in those I nominate. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • And I would point out that you have still not responded to my concerns about your misrepresentation of Ecklund, above -- in spite of complaining about my removal of this material. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Let's discuss that here to keep everything in one place. Brand says he uses Scripture to come up with scientific questions. Ecklund says that near 20% of scientists do that. Earlier, you asked that I provide balance so I don't make it look like only Brand does such thinking. So here we have Ecklund who, as a sociologist surveyed 1500 scientists, (I think that's the number) and less than 20% (which is quite high compared to what I thought) use their religious experiences to help them come up with scientific questions. To me, the Ecklund shows that people like Brand are not alone. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 05:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

No, Ecklund IS NOT describing "people like Brand"

[Moved from above]

  • "His philosophy is shared by 20% of the scientists who believe in God"
    • Blatant WP:Synthesis (and given the search term in Google Books was "they+see+religion+as+important+to+science+ethics" -- highly inaccurate sytnthesis at that).
  • But, Ecklund says that, not me. That is why I provided inline attribution. She is published by Oxford University Press, certainly a reliable source. She is a degreed sociologist certainly capable of interviewing and assessing what her ivy league interviewees thought. Maybe it is hard for you to believe that some scientists believe in God. She found that there are more atheists among scientists than the general population, but she was surprised to find so many, I think she reports 50% who do believe in some kind of higher power. If you read Lockley carefully, it seems that he even believes in God. I suspect in his scientific thinking he leaves God out of the whole process. People like Brand do their field science, their methods, their writing and peer discussions in the same way that naturalistic scientists do. If we can believe Brand, he enjoys his friendships with atheistic scientists. Anyway, back to Ecklund, her findings may be controversial but they are a solid source. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 07:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Get a bloody clue! (i) Eckland says "science ethics", Brand does not -- so they aren't talking about the same thing. (ii) Read my bloody comment: I am talking about WP:Synthesis, NOT WP:RS. (iii) "Maybe" you should stop looking at such broad brushstrokes and read what Ecklund says more carefully. She is not creating one single vague grouping of 'theists' -- and the grouping that you are citing is not identical in its views to Brand. (iv) No Brand doesn't do science "in the same way that naturalistic scientists do" -- he holds onto his Coconino footprint claims in the teeth of geological evidence to the contrary (see Lockley). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
      • I would note that not only doesn't Eckland mention Brand, she does not mention "Interventionism"/an "interventionist deity" and that unlike Brand she prominently mention scientific ethics as an important part of this '20% worldview'. It is therefore highly misleading to claim this 20% for Brand's views. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
      • I would further point out that there is also no indication that this <20% shares Brand's opposition to methodological naturalism. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
        • I agree. But I am not saying that. Ecklund is not saying that. You have probably read more of Brand's views on MN. I don't know if I still understand the concept. When I first learned of MN I thought it sounded pretty sensible. The more I study it, the more I realize that there are features to MN that I don't understand. In trying to understand it further, yesterday I think, the philosophy sites, books etc. were really involving and taxing to follow. I enjoy the concept of analytical philosophy but I need a good night's rest to appreciate the complexity.DonaldRichardSands (talk) 07:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
      • I would further point out that the fact that you were able to cherry-pick a quote from Brand that partially overlaps Eckland does not make Ecland relevant.(i) It is far more likely that she was talking about scientists whose religious beliefs led them to increase crop yields to 'feed the world' or to find the cure for a disease, rather than about a scientist trying (like Brand) to find scientific support for his exegesis. (ii) There is no indication that the quote in question articulates the core of Brand's philosophy of science (and some reason to believe that it is peripheral to a core of 'Interventionism') -- which is one of the reasons WP:PRIMARY sources generally require secondary sources to interpret them. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict)I saw it -- hence my subsection title "No, Ecklund IS NOT describing 'people like Brand'". Brand is stating "he uses Scripture to come up with scientific questions" AND THAT HE BELIEVES A WHOLE HEAP OF OTHER STUFF -- MOST NOTABLY "INTERVENTIONISM" -- Ecklund is describing scientists who "think that religion can meaningfully intersect with their particular research and with the education of their students. They see religion as important to science ethics and as [only] potentially helpful in guiding research questions." This describes a degree of overlap between the two viewpoints NOT THAT THE TWO VIEWPOINTS ARE THE SAME! Ecklund is NOT saying "that near 20% of scientists do" what Brand does. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • potentially is your word, not Ecklund. Brand uses Religion to help him think of science question; Ecklund says other scientists us Religion to help them think of science questions. This is so obviously connected, IMO. Why don't we ask a veteran admin who is a professional writer to examine this? You have strong opinions and are far more experienced than I am. I have only been editing for seven months. But, you are not a WP administrator. Maybe you don't want to be, either. But, because you are not an admin, your dominating attitude doesn't cut it with me. I am a newbie, you are not. I am not an admin and neither are you. I will not back down just because you state things strongly, unless I can see the sense to what you are saying. You know this. Sometimes I agree with you, sometimes I don't. Usually I agree with you. I am not throwing things at the article, but I am adding what I think are impressive additions. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 06:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • No: "potentially" is from your quote of Ecklund. Ecklund was saying a large number of things -- only a very small part of which overlapped your cherry-picked quote of Brand. As the article is not up for WP:SPEEDY deletion or protection, and I'm not looking to have you blocked, the fact that I'm not an Admin is irrelevant. If you disagree with my interpretation of the relevance Ecklund, then by all means take the issue to WP:NORN. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • We have come to agree on many parts of the article: I have noted many times that you and I have come to an agreement on things. It goes something like this. I will add new material. You will criticize parts, suggest or make changes, I will either follow your directions or note your changes. Quite often, I have said to myself, I can live with that. But, this last set of reverts or changes happened without your counsel, you just did it. By the time I came back on, the damage had been done. I got so frustrated I could not even think straight to fix the red <ref> notices. I noticed that you fixed them and I thank you for that and you were kind enough to let the Ecklund quote stand. Even though you opposed its use. DonaldRichardSands (talk)
  • Look at the timestamp of the comments I moved down here DRS: "06:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)" -- I raised this issue more than a day ago. You neglected to mount any defence (in spite of my ever-more-damning indictment of it), so I removed the material. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • May I request that you keep at me to discuss rather than reverting my stuff. You have certainly got my attention by 'destroying' my edits, but here at Wikipedia a day is not very long. Please don't change or delete my edits. Fuss with me to discuss it. Threaten to delete my stuff over and over again, but don't delete them. What does it prove? Your deletes are not just to protect the notability of the topic. Some of them are just your way of doing things. Another editor came in and fixed the Baldwin wording. It was a very kind thing to do, in my opinion, but he did not tamper with the gist of what I had in mind. I suspect that our worldviews on science differ. You have lots of experience dealing with creationists and people of my faith. You have actually expressed, some time ago, some very nasty sentiments about people of my faith. Perhaps you are justified. Young Earth Creationists and Naturalistic Scientists seem to be living on different planets. But, we have already proven that we can work together. I have been frustrating you. Now, with all those reverts, huge deletes of material I took hours developing, you have been frustrating me. I request; I implore, that you mentor me. Do not take drastic actions like you have? Teach me, fuss at me, swear %&@%$% at me, but don't make drastic revisions just because you know you are right. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 06:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Mind your manners! I did not 'destroy' your edit, I repaired it. Your insertion of a <ref> tag caused the Wiki-software's parsing of it to abort, meaning that your ~~~~ was not turned into a signature. I nowiki-ed the <ref> tag and added your signature manually. Check the page history if you don't believe me. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • If you are referring to your mainspace edits -- then read WP:OWNERSHIP & WP:BRD again. Either way, kindly get a clue -- the clueless outraged virgin routine is getting more than a little tiresome. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • In another place I thanked you for that repair. But before that you removed the whole citation and the no wiki problem developed when I tried to restore your deleting my reference and mention of Ecklund. You took out, deleted, destroyed my reference and mention of Ecklund. When I tried to restore the Ecklund material I messed it up with no wiki stuff and you fixed it. When I saw what you did in fixing it, I was, and am, thankful. Listen, you are not the first person to be annoyed with my ways of speaking. Just remember that this 'clueless virgin' does appreciate working with you. :) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 07:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • At the end of the day, Ecklund is saying that <20% of scientists believe X+Y+Z. Brand is saying that he believes A+B+C+D+Z. (This is perhaps oversimplifying, but at least reasonably representative). (i) It is inaccurate to say that Ecklund says that '<20% of scientists believe what Brand believes', because it is not clear that they all signed on for Z, or even that Z is Brand's most important belief. (ii) Even if it were accurate, it would still be impermissible WP:Synthesis -- putting two sources together to say something that neither source individually states. We are explicitly forbidden to do that. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Its almost morning here... :)
    • We are not going to agree on this. Brand affirms Z, Ecklund says more than Brand also affirm Z. If we could remove the 20% in her comment, or paraphrase what she says about Z, that would work. But, it is important that more than Brand affirm Z and Ecklund is our source.DonaldRichardSands (talk) 07:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • None of your suggestions get around the core fact that what you are suggesting is impermissible WP:Synthesis. And no, I do not agree that "Ecklund says more than Brand also affirm Z" -- some of the people could be affirming X or Y, and simply ticking a box that lumps X, Y & Z together. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Back to my main concern: I can live with edits that keep the gist of what I think should be said. But please don't remove the meaning of my edit. Tag it, Double tag it, put all the notices you want, but please don't delete, destroy, remove my edits which have taken hours and hours to track down and are pretty good, at least as rough drafts, IMO. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 07:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • DRS: what I think you don't understand is that tagging is a courtesy not a right -- if you abuse that courtesy by failing to respond to concerns (or by letting too much tagged material build up), then the material will be removed. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The Brand Article

I have decided that I have expended enough energy on trying to save the Brand article. If the decision is to keep it, I will enjoy working on it some more. It is just too hard to fuss with another editor to this extent. IMO, Dr. Brand is a notable figure in America, unassuming but a very interesting person who's story is worthy of notice. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 09:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

  • For the record: I have slightly modified my plan: I am still addicted to discovery. I find it intellectully rewarding to study Brand's story. I am continuing to study him, but I don't plan to be involved in the day by day skirmishes, or to add more opinion here in the near future. I do plan to make a few additions to the article but only after I have worked offline for most of the time. Also, I plan to work on solving the issues raised by the tags. I have defended the 'keep' side and my reasons hopefully are clear to all.

Cactus mice

I would point out that the cited paper appears to WP:Verify very little of the details contained in this section, and that the section exaggerates Brand and Ryckman's importance to this paper -- it is only one of approximately 90 papers surveyed. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this section is under construction. It is right now a very inadequate rough draft. There are two citations which I need to input. Regarding the count, I actually did that count, too and was going to put it in, but forgot. I had been working on investigating stuff for what seemed like forever and I needed to take a break. I do appreciate you being thoughtful, as you have. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 07:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Then might I suggest that you not place it in the article until it is at least an adequate "rough draft". Perfection isn't required, but the material should at least be accurate & informative. Complete sentences would help. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I can do that. What I did for about three hours earlier, I used the 'in use' tag. It is harder. I like to work on something, push the preview, then work on it some more. I can keep preview it, but if both of us are working on the article at the same time, that's gets impossible to figure out. I have been using Notepad to get information ready, that works pretty good, but no preview. I was tired and lazy, more than usual, last evening. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 07:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality of the Brand Article

Hi, let's talk. Where does the article have a point of view. I usually do edits on topics and persons that I like. That is a POV. I assume that it shows. :)

Let's identify the actual text in question and try to correct it.

Also, I am a member of the same faith community as Brand is. We can be quite a biased group. That is POV as well. So, let's identify the actual text. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 15:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Frequent favourable editorialising.
Can you copy and paste an example so we can discuss it?
  • Austin said this. You know this distinction. Austin said this highly favoring comment about Brand. That quote from a prominent journal is worthy of note. Not because he is right and yes Austin is editorializing not me. He has done so in an undisputed secondary source. I have given intext attribution. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Pervasively cherry-picking favorable quotes out of mainly unfavorable assessments of Brand's work.
Can you copy and paste an example so we can discuss it?
  • "Brand and Tang (1991) have brought some very puzzling aspects of these spectacular trace fossils to the attention of a broad audience ... Although I strongly disagree with Brand and Tang’s conclusion, I find their experimental approach very useful, and hope to incorporate it in the testing of my own hypothesis."
Also, can you identify unfavorable assessments of Brand's work. A cut and paste would be ideal, but something that we can specifically identify and discuss?
  • I did not have the full article, it costs $40 I think. The source I relied upon can be accused of cherry-picking, I like to think I don't do that. The quotes I include from our 8 reliable sources have not been such, as far as I recall. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Pervasive exaggeration of the prominence of Brand's work in reviews that often only tangentially mention it.
  • My goal is not to show prominence. As a scientist, Brand is not prominent. My goal is to show what these naturalistic scientists say about Brand. As a creationist, if Kurt Wise and Steven Austin speak of him the way they do, then he has risen to some prominence in the creationist movement. Scientifically, Brand is barely noticed. He is noticed though, as 100's of scientists are, by their small contribution to their discipline. This is Brand with chipmunks, mice, whales, turtles, and salamandars. He is not prominent in any of these studies. I don't say he is. But, he is known by the geologists and paleontologists that I have quoted. I believe that if a Creationist's scientific methods are not discounted but rather published in peer-reviewed science journals then that is important, and notable. Elders makes this very point. Would elders say that Brand was a prominent scientist, no. Would Elders say that Brand is a notable exception among creationists because he has been published in science journals, yes. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
again, let's consider specific examples. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • WP:Synthesis of Ecklund to make it appear that a significant minority share Brand's views.

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree on this. The quotes make it obvious what Austin thinks of Brand and the parsing that Elders does shows that he does not question Brand's research methods. This is a sound demonstration of that. I attempted to put the discussion in its place by saying for Austin's quote, "among others". The fact that the chief geologist at CRI and a notable naturalistic geologist both have things to say about Brand in a prominent journal. Maybe I will seek a wider opinion on this one. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I am sure you have noticed my call for help on that. Let's discuss this after the helper responds. Thanks, this is helpful. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Elders & Austin on Brand

It is clear that:

  1. Brand was a very minor part of the dispute between Elders and Austin.
  2. Elders based his dismissal of Brand on Lockley and Hunt and the inconsistent evidence that they identify.
  3. Austin makes no mention of Lockley and Hunt and their inconsistent evidence. His claim that "Elders does not answer the specific evidence provided by Brand and the others" is actually irrelevant. It does not matter if some aspects of Coconino Sandstone are consistent with Brand's experimental results as well as with other explanations, what is relevant is that other aspects of the Coconino Sandstone is inconsistent with it but consistent with other explanations. I would therefore recommend removal of this material as irrelevant, misleading & self-serving (and also removal of Elders' reply to it).

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I would also suggest that it would be appropriate if Lockley and Hunt (1995) received more attention than as simply one of three citations for "This hypothesis has not found support in the geological community, which has found various pieces of evidence supporting their formation on dry land." This appears to have been the main dissection of Brand's hypothesis -- yet receives less attention than Brand's $50 book prize. NPOV this ain't! HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Elders Bibliolatry Essay: section discussing Brand

Hi all. Wilfred Elders uses elegant and concise descriptions. The Brand article recently has added information from Elder's essay entitled Bibliolatry in the Grand Canyon. Two paragraphs report on Brand and Tang's acquarium study and Lockley and Hunt's findings in opposition. Here are the quotes:

This study by Brand and Tang (1991) included experiments on the track-making abilities of western newts walking on sand under 4 cm of flowing water in an aquarium tank. They report that some unusual tracks in the Coconino start and end abruptly and have individual prints oriented obliquely to the general trend of the trackway. By analogy with their tank experiments, they infer that such tracks were formed by amphibians buoyantly supported in flowing water. They conclude that these features, "point to the subaqueous deposition for at least part of the Coconino Sandstone" (Brand and Tang 1991: 1204).



On the other hand, as part of an extensive review of animal trackways, Lockley and Hunt (1995) decided that the vertebrate trackways in the Coconino Sandstone were made by mammal-like reptiles (called caseids) rather than by amphibians. Furthermore they record trackways made by animals moving with loping, trotting, or galloping gaits, most often up slope, but occasionally horizontally or obliquely to the slope. They also point to the prob1cm of the many invertebrate traces. It is difficult to imagine millipedes, scorpions and spiders making prolific underwater tracks. Besides, the geological evidence for the eolian origin of the Coconino Sandstone is compelling.

Our article section reads:

In the July/August, 1998 issue of Reports of the National Center for Science Education Wilfred Elders, Professor of Geology Emeritus University of California Riverside, wrote a review of Institute for Creation Research Geologist Steve Austin's book, Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, that briefly mentioned Brand and Tang's work, stating that its conclusions were overturned by Lockley and Hunt's "extensive review" in 1995 which both identified a number of inconsistencies between Brand and Tang's conclusions and the evidence, and offers an alternative explanation.

Here is the source cited in the article:

Elders, Wilfred (July–August, 1998). "Bibliolatry in the Grand Canyon". Reports of the National Center for Science Education. 18 (4). NCSE: 11–19. ISSN 1064-2358. Retrieved August 15, 2011. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Question: The notion of "over-turned" doesn't seem to be in the original paragraphs. Scientists state informed conclusions. They don't view their work as the final say on a matter. Elders reports that Lockley and Hunt "decided" from the evidence. Elders states that he agrees. I don't think that they would use the term over-turned in their scientific peer-reviewed discussions. What do you think? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 07:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Elders makes it abundantly clear that the evidence for the alternative explanation is "compelling" and that Brand's explanation fails to explain much of the evidence. In these circumstances I would suggest that "over-turned" is a reasonable summary. Brand's explanation is left without a leg to stand on. How would you describe this. I think that you're trying to avoid having Brand look bad. Oh, and you haven't addressed my point that Austin side-steps Elders' argument and so is irrelevant. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Or to put it another way, what is formal language for the fact that Lockley and Hunt showed that Brand 'really, really, REALLY did not have a leg to stand on.' The best word I could come up with was "over-turned" is there a more appropriate one. Would 'eviscerated' be better, or is this too colourful? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • This next input I had prepared and we edited at the same time. Consequently, it doesn't discuss your last input:
I agree with the term compelling but the text does not say that Lockley and Hunt over-turned Brand's ideas. It does give convincing argument. But that is not over-turning in the sense of the whole scientific community are now satisfied. They might be, but this Elders quote does not say that. Isn't that your using Lockley and Hunt to declare the whole debate to have been won. Scientists are not so vain as to think that their observations have caused the debate to be won and the oppositions notions have been over-turned. I suggest that the strength of Lockley and Hunt's observations can be shown without using the grandiose "over-turned".

It is interesting to me, that we have been working on the Bibliolatry essay at the same time. I had been toying with wording. I will put my draft here so you can see my thinking. I favor Lockley and Elders conclusions on the footprints. I have not read any of Hunt's work yet. Lockley has a book on dinosaur tracks cited by Elders. It seems that after Brand et al published their study Lockley and Hunt conducted an extensive review. Elders sides with Lockley and Hunt. That is obvious. They also believe they are correct. I think the most convincing part of the argument is the invertebrate traces. Anyway, here is my draft for discussion:

Brand and Tang use western newts. They had them walk on sand under 4 cm of flowing water in an aquarium tank. They use their observations to conclude that at least part of the Cooconino Sandstone was deposited under water.



Elders says that Lockley and Hunt conducted an extensive review of animal trackways in the Coconino Sandstone. They decided that the Coconino trackways were made by mammal-like reptiles rather than amphibians. Lockley and Hunt also noted traces of invertebrates such as millipedes, scorpions and spiders. Elders points out that such creatures are not active underwater.

I think we should add the aquarium study details. Also, I think there is a way to portray the strength of Lockley, Hunt, Elders etc. consensus without declaring something overturned. If taken to a vote, Brand's conclusions certainly would be "over-turned" but that is not how science works. Every scientist submits his research and reviews of others and the scientists who right textbooks etc. report a consensus. Do we have a secondary source that says that it has all been over-turned. It seems that you have ventured into interpreting the findings as you see them. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 08:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Actually the fact that the Brand hypothesis cannot explain the invertebrate footprints falsifies the hypothesis and thus "overturns" it. This is in fact a very basic part of the scientific method -- just one that creationists routinely 'conveniently' overlook. A hypothesis only remains viable if it explains all the available evidence. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, and I personally am coming to agree with Lockley, Hunt and Elders that the water idea does not hold up. The point I am making is that Elders doesn't speak about the whole debate. He describes Brand's work fairly, describes Lockley et al conclusions to the contrary. And weighs in himself, agreeing with Lockley. As you and I look at the Elders quote, we say, "You know, Lockley is right about this." But Elders does not say anything for all scientists. That is why I find the overturned says too much for the quote. Overturned is accurate for the way we have come to see the debate, but that is our response to Elders report of three scientists strongly disagreeing with two scientists. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 08:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I would suggest that in this (scientific) context "contradicted by" (Isaak's exact words in summarising Lockley) is basically synonymous with 'falsified by' or 'overturned by'. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • If you are quoting Isaak, that would be accurate. Falsified and Overturned are the same thing. The Elders quote reports Brand and Tang's study then Lockley and Hunt's review study, along with their conclusions. It may be correct to say that Lockley and Hunt falsified the hypothesis proposed by Brand and Tang. We have no quote from Elders which allows us to move into a larger pronouncement. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 09:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Not only did he use those exact words, I'm fairly certain that underwater is indeed contradicted by "can only be made on completely dry sand" and "raindrops". I don't think there's any escaping from that. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

In addition, the types of sedimentary structures and pedological features, which have been reported from the Coconino Sandstone clearly refute a underwater origin for the Coconino Sandstone as summarized by McKee (1979) and reported in other later papers. The overwhelming consensus of mainstream geologists is that the Coconino Sandstone is a terrestrial deposit consisting mainly of eolian sediments. At this time, the only geologists, who argue that the Coconino Sandstone was deposited underwater are Young Earth creationists, who need the Coconino Sandstone to be marine in origin in order to validate their personal religious beliefs in the eyes of the public as noted in Newton (2011a, 2011b).

McKee, E. D., 1979, [A Study of Global Sand seas.] Professional Paper 1052. United States Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. 429 pp.

Newton, S., 2001a, [The Coconino's starring role in the creationist-geologist battle.] Earth (July 2011). American Geological Institute, Washington, D.C.

Newton, S., 2001a, [Creationism creeps into mainstream geology.] Earth (July 2011). American Geological Institute, Washington, D.C.Paul H. (talk) 14:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Why are we avoiding Lockley and Hunt (1995)?

Elders makes it very clear that this is the go-to source on scientific criticism of the underwater hypothesis. It is also listed as one of the sources in TalkOrigins Archive rebuttals. It is also one of the first sources cited by this article -- back when this issue only received two sentences. Yet in spite of throwing everything but the kitchen sink at this article, we have avoided going to this go-to source. I don't have access to it online, and am snowed in (so even if the local university had a copy, I wouldn't be able to access it -- just checked -- no it doesn't). But if anybody is serious about a balanced article on the topic -- this is the elephant in the room. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Elder's mentioning of it enlightened me to Lockley's book. I looked for it on Google books but there is no preview available. Here is the info site: http://books.google.ca/books?id=AWLCBwh7aRcC I agree that Elders points to this book as an important part of the discussion. Hrafn, I am not contrary to the findings of these scientists. When I write, I am usually writing from my framework which is lop-sided. So what I write often is not balanced. But, I'm not against balance. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 08:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I've tried to put a bit in based upon Elders' & Isaak's summary of L&H -- but suspect that a clearer impression would be gained from the horse's mouth (for one thing I have no real idea how angle-to-slope fits into things). Can we agree that as Austin completely fails to address L&H, that he largely wanders off into irrelevance (and so can be omitted)? The point is that as L&H offered an alternative explanation Elders really didn't care if Brand's experimental results & hypothesis explains some of the evidence -- it was the fact that the L&H explanation could explain both this and other evidence that Brand's couldn't that was important. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

More exaggeration

On the topic of exaggeration, how does a brief piece by a "Research Fellow" at Avondale College on Brand's book, which makes no mention of the church's hierarchy etc, demonstrate a "Relationship to the Seventh-day Adventist Church"? That an affiliated and totally non-prominent source notes that Brand has on occasion written about Adventist-related topics does not substantiate any prominent "relationship" -- beyond that which you'd usually expect between a man and his denomination. As I have said before, titles need to be summarising, not editorialising. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Patrick is one of the more careful and open scholars within the church. He seeks to be objective, and even though he is church affiliated and quite main stream, the progressives within the church relate well to his essays. I was pleased to see him weigh in on Brand's book. He summarizes the nature of the book, and his essay is valuable just for that. He is willing to examine issues frankly. I don't think his assessment should be removed but I do believe that lots more sourcing needs to be done to show that this book is making a significant impact within the church. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 10:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  1. NOT third party
  2. NOT prominent
  3. does NOT demonstrate any particular "Relationship to the Seventh-day Adventist Church" -- the topic of the section

This is simply throwing anything against the wall and seeing what sticks. Wikipedia is not the venue for documenting, in obsessive detail, how the SDA describes their own. If you want a venue for that, then go and form Adventopedia. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I wrote this while Hrafn posted the edit conflict input below this:

  • We have had the third party discussion before. Our conclusions are in conflict and we need to seek neutral advisors on Adventists writing about Adventists.
  • Notice that the source of Patrick's essay is SDA Net. SDA Net is one of those independent Adventist efforts. The man who runs it works for the Fermi lab in Chicago, I think. SDA Net runs a forum and publishes leading edge material as far as the topic of Adventism is concerned. They are like a conservative version of Spectrum, except all of their work is online.
  • Patrick is prominent enough to have an entry in Wikipedia.
  • Again, notice the article, Avondale is the Adventist school for Australia.
  • His notability within Adventism is without dispute.


(edit conflict) What we really need, if we want to substantiate a meaningful "Relationship to the Seventh-day Adventist Church" is a (preferably prominent) third party source stating how Brand has had a significant impact on (say) how the SDA views science. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Yes, that would be helpful. Remember, the Patrick material is not to establish the notability of Brand but to show the features of Brand's book on Ellen White. Brand's notability is being shown in other ways. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 11:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

  1. There are many more conservatives, but we don't allow conservatives to "describe their own", without leaving to go to Conservapedia.
  2. Arthur Patrick is a badly sourced article -- being almost exclusively sourced to a single profile from a source that Patrick himself writes for.
  • Shall we work on that together next. We make quite a team. :)
  1. I'm sorry, but the interpretation of policy I have expressed on third party sourcing are widely held within Wikipedia. If you want to take it to a noticeboard (e.g. WP:RSN) or call a WP:RFC on the topic, then you're welcome to. However the fact remains that Wikipedia articles are meant to be predominately sourced to secondary, third-party sourcing, and that lack of such sourcing on a sub-topic is generally considered evidence that the sub-topic is not noteworthy.
  • We will just have to work on resolving that problem. I will find the sources and you help me with my drafts. :) We are making this article much better as we work together. We couldn't have done it without you. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 15:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  1. I have raised SDANet on WP:RSN.

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

  • I looked over the acknowledgements. McMahon thanks several people including Patrick for his encouragement. If I was writing a book, and Patrick encouraged me to do so, I would be honored. And, knowing how professionally objective Patrick is, a book review by him would be a feather in my cap. To call such collegiality 'incestuous' is offensive. To say it gives evidence of 'close affiliation' is a much less vulgar way to assert the same thing. However, Patrick's encouragement further underlines that this book is considered important in Adventist circles. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • And on the third-party issue, this parenthetical from WP:RSN may prove relevant:

if the next Pope only gets attention from the Catholic church and not from news agencies, I'd even go as far as to say he would only get a mention in other articles but not his own

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Regarding the Pope only being mentioned by Catholics, or Brand only by Adventists, I agree with Ian Thompson. Now, once we have some non-Catholic sources about the Pope to establish notability, then Catholic sources are suitable to deepen and broaden the article. So with the Brand article: let's establish his notability by including sources from the wider community outside Adventism. The science community, the creationist community, the media, etc. Then, let's add wonderful detail to the article such as how this person as a student was recognized as a gifted budding scientist, much like I was. :) Let's show how carefully and deliberately he does science by sourcing the various reports published in the scientific journals. Not once have I read where his scientific methodologies have been faulted. His conclusions, yes, but not his methods. This man is an amazing methodical careful thinker. If he had written an autobiography, we could use it; carefully, but that too can be used. Wikipedia is a sensible and reasonable community. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Some editors consider any sourcing to the same organization's broad spectrum of journals and documents to be inappropriate. Well, as we discuss such things here with various experienced and sensible editors, we find that Wikipedia policy is broadly construed and wonderfully flexible. Common sense, consensus, good will, civility all have their role. Two of the five pillars of wikipedia are especially relevant to our discussion:
Orange pillar (4: Code of conduct and etiquette) || Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner.
Red pillar (5: Ignore all rules) || Wikipedia does not have firm rules.
  • Wikipedia is like a school playground. I have suggested a military metaphor comparing admins and nonadmins. Well, I am also viewing Wikipedia through the metaphor of a school playground. Some kids work together, some alone. Some have social courtesy others are vulgar at times. Some get along while others are either the bullied or the bullies. Sometimes the teachers come out to solve problems or supervise. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


Edit Times

Have you noticed that we tend to edit at different UTC times. You are often on during this time and I am on earlier. I was thinking about this and figured that it was kind of useful. We should actually negotiate a plan where you take the editorial lead between certain hours of the UTC and I take the lead at other times. By lead, I mean the actual editing. If the other person is concerned about the lead, they can communicate it some how. If we AGF toward each other, such an arrangement could work. You must be aware that this article could not be as advanced as it is, if we had not worked on it together. I have been finding the sources and you have been insisting that the article reach a certain level of quality. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 06:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

  • By AGF I mean that we have a pretty good idea how to work with the other. You know what annoys me and tend to respect that, and I keep in mind your focus on precision and do try to be more precise. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 06:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

DonaldRichardSands: stop adding unsourced material!

Doing so is in direct violation of WP:Verifiability.

And no, placing a {{citation needed}} tag on it does not make the addition acceptable.

Do so again and you will get tagged like the newbie you are acting like. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Donald: Most editors understand this is a collegial collaborative space and extend one another "professional courtesy" i.e. a grace period to add sources. Hrafn does not subscribe to that line of thinking. WP:V is a pillar of Wikipedia. So, please make sure your additions have inline cites.
Hrafn: you have every right to insist policies be followed. Just be careful you don't become uncivil. – Lionel (talk) 07:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I have added the 'in use' tag, that should help us cooperate. Thanks. Hrafn, why is it that we can't be civil and cooperative. Is it your purpose to help the article or to fight against me? We have proven at moments that we can work with each other. Perhaps we should ask for a third party to help us get along. After all this school playground does have some 'supervisers' we can call upon. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 07:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

THIS HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE BRAND ARTICLE, YOUR COOPERATION IS APPRECIATED

{{in use}}

THIS HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE BRAND ARTICLE, YOUR COOPERATION IS APPRECIATED

DonaldRichardSands (talk) 07:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I forgot about that template. That gives you 2 hours Donald. I hope that's enough time. If you need more use {{inuse|time (message)}}. – Lionel (talk) 07:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
"help the article or to fight against me?" Isn't Hfran trying to delete the article? – Lionel (talk) 07:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


Lionelt: what a load of WP:Complete bollocks:

  1. There is no convention of a grace period for adding sources. If you are adding it, you are expected to have the source to hand. Not having it to hand raises a significant probability that you will accidentally mis-portray the source -- something that DRS has a very bad habit of doing.
  2. In any case, the material had been added several hours before I removed it again.

DonaldRichardSands:

  1. That template was not on the article when I removed the unsourced material.
  2. In any case it does not provide a licence to add unsourced material. Your compliance with WP:Verifiability is not just "appreciated" but required.

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Hrafn, I don't know a fraction that you do about WP. You are like the proverbial mean-talking Sargent-major. I didn't sign up to be under your counsel, but now that I am, let's continue. As Dominus has pointed out, you are one of the best. When I put the 'in use' up, it was not to accuse you. It was to protect my slow process of editing and standardizing sources. I think better if I can work the article with drafts and then fix. I don't put up anything that I haven't found the sources for. I find it is the standardizing of the sources that takes the time. So I put up new information that I have sources for and then I work those sources. Wikipedia has no hard and fast rules. How can it work? By AGF. This does not mean to put up with inferior ways, but I suggest that you coach and cajole. I will not expect Wiki love from you. :)
Hfran since you won't read the documentation for the tag I'll add it for your convenience:

On the other hand we do have {{inuse}} tags, which can be used to alert people that you are in the process of making a larger edit (within 1 – 180 minutes). The article remains open to editing, but courteous users should leave it alone until you're done.

I can't wait to see if Hfran will be courteous or not.– Lionel (talk) 08:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Lionelt: bluntly, fuck off! I have not (as far as I can remember) failed to honour an {{inuse}} tag, so see no reason why I should put up with you reading me a perfectly superfluous lecture on the subject. I am almost as tired of your hectoring and demands-which-have-no-basis-in-policy as I am of DRS's Private Benjamin routine. I place no faith whatsoever in your judgement, and if you tell me to do something I find myself having to resist an irrational desire to reflexively do the exact opposite. I would therefore suggest that you marshal what little judgement you appear to have, and hold your peace. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)DRS: policy makes a point of the need for secondary/third-party sourcing, I have made this point, so has Ian Thompson. If you keep insisting on adding more and still more purely-primary/affiliated material, there's very little chance of anything other than an adversarial relationship on this. If I'm the "proverbial mean-talking Sargent-major", then you're quite clearly the Private Benjamin -- the comical and sympathy-evoking incurable screwup. And I'm getting more than a little tired of the routine -- it's like being force-fed the entire tv series of Pvt B in a single sitting. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Just a note that {{inuse}} and {{underconstruction}} templates are courtesy notes for major work to avoid edit conflicts. This does not trump any policies, notably WP:V. Other editors may wait in good faith for the edits to be completed, as in this case – for sourced material to be added. After all, WP:NODEADLINE. Also, editors are free to work in their sandboxes for as long as they wish. The material does not have to be "live" from minute one. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Just want to jump in here with my admin hat on: No, information does not have to be sourced from the moment it is added. However, any unsourced information which is challenged may be removed by any other editor. It's up to that other editor whether or not to directly remove the material, or to add a "citation needed" tag; usually the editor should make a judgment call about whether how likely it is that the information is actually correct and can be verified. But if an editor does remove unsourced information, the burden is on the person wanting to add the information to provide sources. Of course, one should give a little bit of good faith--if the information appears decent, you should at least give the person the courtesy of a few minutes to format and add the references (that can be a bit of work at times, and some people do prefer multiple edits to a single one). I would definitely say that interrupting someone who has put up an inuse or underconstruction template to remove information not currently sourced is being very intentionally uncivil and disruptive. Usually an inuse template implies "Hey, I've got to change a bunch of stuff, I don't know exactly how it's going to look until I start playing with it, so give me an hour or two to get everything set up right." Qwyrxian (talk) 00:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

RFC: Remove material that is supported only by Brand's own writings and/or affiliated sources?

Apart from the subtopic of Coconino Sandstone footprints/'Salamanders' have any areas of Brand's work received sufficient third party coverage to warrant extended coverage (i.e. their own section or subsection)? Also is the "$50 book scholarship" sufficiently non-trivial to warrant mention at all? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment. Not familiar with the subject or the background of this apparent content dispute, I will give my general opinion. Anything based on primary sources should be brief and to the point with no original research. If secondary sources have not covered the research, then neither should we give undue weight to it. However, reliably published journals can be used to describe person's research. Especially if there are several per topic and they are co-published with other (notable) researchers. But again, briefly. I would say the current "California Chipmunks", "Cactus Mice, "Whales", and "Turtles" sections can be trimmed down to a single paragraph. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove $50 scholarship as trivial — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
Keep sections The journals are reliable and not primary sources. For all intents each sentence is sourced to a different source; trimming might entail deleting references. Also it is beneficial for readers to have the different research topics in the TOC for ease in locating. – Lionel (talk) 10:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Lionelt: there is a huge difference between primary and secondary sources. See WP:Primary sources. The encyclopedia cannot include material from every single journal article, regardless how respected, and put it into some article. Instead, WP:Secondary sources are required to demonstrate that other people have commented on the material, and proven that it is encyclopedic. Other WP articles covering scientists rely on sources other than the scientist himself. The scientist's own works usually are listed in a Bibliography at the bottom (for a random example, see Luis_Alvarez#Publications). --Noleander (talk) 16:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
What is included in the encyclopedia is determined by relevance, WP:DUE, etc. Yes WP:PRIMARY states that review articles are secondary sources. But note that it also says that "A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war." Brand's work qualifies as a secondary source under the "military historian rule." – Lionel (talk) 06:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Brand's work is only being cited to WP:Verify their own existence -- for which purpose they are clearly a WP:PRIMARY source (as has already been pointed out to you). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove - Remove the Whale, Mice, etc sections that are only supported by citations to articles that Brand wrote. They are already mentioned in the existing Bibliography list at the bottom. A sentence or two can be added to following each publication in the Bibliography section, if it will help readers understand the publication. They most certainly do not deserve entire sections to themselves. Including that material is self-promotion. If secondary sources can be found that discuss Brand's research on whales, mice, etc, then they may take on a notability that warrants inclusion in the body of the article. But I see no such sources. --Noleander (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Don't Remove The biography section is about Brand the person. IMO, Brand is not a notable academic, he is a notable person who happens to be a respected academic. The standards for a notable person include that person being significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded. See: Wikipedia:Notability (people). Brand's story is interesting. His youthful awards add to the interest. He did not write the news item which tells about the award. He is unusual enough. He is a YEC who's science methods are respected by several authors in the scientific community. He challenges other creationists to be cautious when speaking scientifically. Yet, they respect him and quote his scientific disoveries. He is unusual in that he has rigorously studied chipmunks, mice, turtles, whales, salamanders. He has done work in Peru with Peruvian scientists. Another unusual factor is Brand's book on Ellen White in response to the well-known author Ronald Numbers. Numbers responds to Brand in his book Prophetess of Health (2008). Brand is interesting and unusual. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Donald: I think this RfC is not asking about the entire article, it is just asking about a few sections in the middle of the article, on whales, mice, etc. The "remove" question is whether the whale/mice/etc sections should be removed. If you agree, could you re-phrase your comments? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 18:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
  • RS noticeboard - I posted a notice at WP:RSN to get input from editors that may be more familiar with Reliable Sources policies. --Noleander (talk) 00:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
    • From RSN: "there is no distinction between a research paper and a review article that cites something from another source; both are a secondary sources for what is being cited." Thus Brand's research is considered a secondary source for the animal he is studying.– Lionel (talk) 06:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Requestor's clarification: I also meant this RfC to apply to the 'Philosophy of Science' section as well as 'Scientific research'. The 'Relationship to the Seventh-day Adventist Church' section is also problematical (and lacking third-party sources), but as the main issue there is WP:Synthesis, I had intended to bring it up on WP:NORN after this RfC had subsided. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Changing the topic of the RfC after it has begun and people have commented is highly irregular. Perhaps it would be better to withdraw the RfC and start allover.– Lionel (talk) 05:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Keep your BS WP:BAITing to yourself Lionelt: I explicitly stated this RfC was on "areas of Brand's work". DRS has been ham-fistedly promoting 'Philosophy of Science' as part of this work right the way through. There is therefore nothing in the least bit "irregular" in calling attention to the fact that it is covered by my original question. As to the RfC title, it had already been changed once from my original, so I just modified it slightly further to more accurately reflect the full extent of my original question. Now are you quite finished nit-picking? Or would you like to also critique my spelling and grammar? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Why are you assuming that anyone other than yourself and Donald are aware that he was "ham-fisting" anything??? You really think anyone with a life is going to read 10 days of back and forth bickering??? Your intro of the RfC mentions salamanders. I assumed you were referring to the scientific research. While I'm not speaking for him, I speculate that Hellknowz also made the same asumption because his comments are only directed at the animal sections-----NOT Philosophy. So if you really really really want Philosophy then withdraw and reopen. And don't get mad at me because you botched your own RfC.– Lionel (talk) 06:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Odd, I can't remember "assuming" or 'thinking' anything of the sort. I simply explained why 'Philosophy of Science' was covered by my original question, and why it was not "irregular" of me to make a clarification pointing out this fact. But then it seems that you are thinking and assuming that you know better than myself, and the plain wording of the article, what "areas of Brand's work", and thus the RfC question, covers. Such omniscience must be lonely. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Well each of us has our own cross to bear. Stick around, pal, maybe some of my omniscience will rub off on you. I have plenty to spare.– Lionel (talk) 08:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Bibliography

The bibliography section only reiterates poorly the content of the sections that were above it. It is more encyclopedic to summarise Brand's research in prose, rather than an extended bibliography, and either way the duplication isn't warranted. I've moved the content to here, so that everyone can confirm for themselves that the references are still preserved in the article (in the form of inline citations for the scientific research section) and nothing is lost. Cesiumfrog (talk) 00:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Research Reported in Peer-Reviewed Journals
California Chipmunks
  • Brand, L. R. (1974) Tree nests of California chipmunks (Eutamias), Amer. Midl. Nat., 91:489–491
  • Brand, L. R. (1976). The vocal repertoire of chipmunks (Genus Eutamias) in California. Animal Behaviour, 24:319-335 ST - The vocal repertoire of chipmunks
  • Blankenship, D. J.; Brand, L. R. (December 1987). "Geographic Variation in Vocalizations of California Chipmunks, Tamias obscurus and T. merriami". Southern California Academy of Sciences Bulletin. 86 (3). Los Angeles, CA: Southern California Academy of Sciences: 126–135. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
Cactus Mice
Fossil footprints
Taphonomy of Fossil Turtles
  • Brand, L. R., H. T. Goodwin, P. G. Ambrose, and H. P. Buchheim. (2000). "Taphonomy of turtles in the Middle Eocene Bridger Formation, SW Wyoming." Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 162:171-189.
Taphonomy of Fossil Whales
  • Brand, L. R., R. Esperante, A. V. Chadwick, O. Poma, and M. Alomia. (2004). "Fossil whale preservation implies high diatom accumulation rate in the Miocene-Pliocene Pisco Formation of Peru." Geology, 32:165-168.
Experimental Taphonomy
  • Brand, L. R., M. Hussey, and J. Taylor. (2003). "Decay and disarticulation of small vertebrates in controlled experiments." Journal of Taphonomy, 1(2):69-95.
Philosophy of Science
Lectures, Essays and Books

More on Ecklund

Question1
Is Brand's view and part of Ecklund's report on the same topic?
Question2
Is it original research to conclude from Ecklund's report that Brand is not alone on this, or unique.

Brand says:

In my approach, I retain the scientific method of observation and experimentation, but I also allow study of Scripture to open my eyes to things that I might otherwise overlook and to suggest new hypotheses to test. This approach is not just a theory; some of us have been using it for years with success.


The article states:

Though most scientists leave the bible and religious views out of their work, the use of religious notions to inspire scientific inquiry is not unique to Brand.[original research?][dubious – discuss] According to sociologist Elaine Ecklund, {{Quotation|A minority of scientists (less than 20 percent) think that religion can meaningfully intersect with their particular research and with the education of their students. They see religion as important to science ethics and as potentially helpful in guiding research questions." (emphasis added)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DonaldRichardSands (talk • contribs)


  1. Google Books does not show the Brand quote being contained in Beginnings: are science and Scripture partners in the search for origins?

DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

  1. Do we have a WP:SECONDARY source interpreting this quote as representative of the main thrust of Brand's views?
  2. Do we have a WP:SECONDARY source interpreting the conveniently-bolded section of the Ecklund quote as being the most important part of this viewpoint?
  3. Do we have a WP:SECONDARY source placing Brand's writing in the context of Ecklund's "less than 20 percent"?

If the answer to none of the last three is 'yes', do we have any doubt that this is blatant (and tenuous) WP:Synthesis? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


  1. Yes, and I am not sure where I got the quote from. I will have to double check things. Thanks.
    I knew where to find a hard copy, so I have checked. He does say that. The quote can't be used unless it can be verified. That may not be possible, I will work on it.
  2. Not yet. Brand says it, it doesn't have to be his main thrust. I think it is though. This is vintage Brand. You know Brand enough to know that he tries to do just that.
  3. I don't mind the bold being removed, I did that to help our discussion.
  4. The twenty percent is not necessary in the text. Ecklund reports having found scientists who allow their religious views to influence the kind of questions they consider in science.

You are prone to strong adjectives, the dutch uncle approach. I try to ignore your unfriendly adjectives, or are you this way with your friends, and learn from you anyway. Let me address this a bit more. I have not found one wikipedia policy guide which is rudely worded. Show me a policy that says something is 'blatant' or 'conveniently bolded' or an editor is a 'complete failure' if. In these use of adjectives that border on rudeness, it is you who are violating the wonderful positive philosophy of wikipedia. Perhaps Wikipedia has identified Wiki-bullying already. Your ideas are good but your manners are not so good, IMO. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


  • Please cease and desist garbling my comments by intermixing your own. The result is (a) unreadable & (b) makes it confusing as to who said what.
  1. "I am not sure where I got the quote from" = serious violation of WP:Verifiability.
  2. If it is not "his main thrust" then we do not have any reason to consider it sufficiently integral to his views to identify these views with Ecklund's group. This is particularly relevant, as there is a strong indication that Brand's views may go considerably beyond those that Ecklund's group is advocating.
  3. No -- you did that in the article itself -- further aggravating the WP:Synthesis.

Clarification of usage of Ecklund as WP:SYNTHESIS

DonaldRichardSands please explain how your use of Ecklund is not WP:Synthesis?
Well, why? I first raised it in #More dubious claims in the lead, then #No, Ecklund IS NOT describing "people like Brand", then #Neutrality of the Brand Article, then #More on Ecklund, but you still have not addressed this point. This is not good faith engagement. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

We have discussed this before.
  • Ecklund says that some of the scientists she studied reported that their religious life helps them ask research questions.
  • Brand says he let's the Bible help him ask research questions. There is no need for synthesis. The article just reported what Brand said then what Ecklund said. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
  • ...then DonaldRichardSands says that they are talking about the same thing. This is WP:Synthesis. Ecklund does not say 'I am talking about the same thing as Brand'. Brand does not say 'I am talking about the same thing as Ecklund'. It is only DonaldRichardSands who is making this synthetic claim. This is the point that you've failed to address. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
  • And how, DonaldRichardSands, is the statement "They both say the same thing" not "combin[ing] material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources"? Neither Brand nor Ecklund are stating that they are saying the same thing, you are -- and that is the very definition of WP:Synthesis. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Leonard_R._Brand/Archive_2&oldid=1136262828"