Talk:Leonard R. Brand

Speedy Deletion

Strong Keep: Article meets requirements for WP:Notability, as can be seen just from the list of references included in the article. 13 articles, mostly in reliable sources, and a university-published book.

Also, within the field of geology, Brand is well known for his research suggesting that fossil tracks in the Grand Canyon's Coconino Sandstone point to underwater deposition, rather than desert wind deposition of dry sand.

I will be adding this information to the article shortly. Goo2you 21:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

As the reviewing administrator, It certainly at least passes speedy deletion, for it asserts notability. 23:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 23:02, 19 October, 2007 (UTC)

creationism

Brand is author of the book "Beginnings: are science and scripture partners in the search for origins?" (isbn 13 9780816321445). Presumably his uncommon position as both a prominent literal creationist (an SDA) as well as a reputable scientist (with professional expertise on fossils) is a major component of his general notability, and worth giving much more attention to in the article?

On the other hand, shouldn't the long "selected bibliography" section just be removed? The place for self-advertisement is a CV not an encyclopedia. Or better, the listing should be converted to inline references for a section of prose summarising his major research programs. Cesiumfrog (talk) 03:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I see very little indication that he is a "reputable scientist", or any substantiation of a "professional expertise on fossils". More importantly, I'm seeing very little third-party coverage, so very little indication of notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

A PhD in a science (biology) from a major ("Ivy League") research university. Publishes in multiple peer-reviewed journals (e.g J. Paleo. and Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol.). That's enough: It qualifies him as a scientist, with expertise in the specific field that pertains to fossils.

You're not helping your cause by baselessly insinuating otherwise. You make an agenda and bias too evident. You would do well to read his book that I mentioned (or to a lesser extent, read grisda.org, which he is apparently affiliated with). I think you would quickly realise that he is exactly as you would prefer all creationists to be: 1. Highly informed on the subtleties of the scientific mainstream; 2. Deferrent to that mainstream; 3. quick to acknowledge and detail upfront the numerous evidentiary holes/weaknesses associated with his model. (He is a "professional" scientist both in the sense that his science is a component of his profession, even if he is only a prof. of an SDA institution, and in the sense of his conduct, e.g., that he says he does not mention his beliefs when presenting his work at scientific conferences.) You might well conclude that your agenda is one that would be served if Brand had more publicity (since he's no opponent of rational investigation and what is left after he examines the evidence would probably discomfort most creationists). The book itself possibly even qualifies for WP:NB by being studied at SDA institutions. I think Brand satisfies WP:PEOPLE, being "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" just on the basis of the juxtaposition of significant creationism advocacy plus legitimate pertinent scientific credentials. As for WP:PROF, I think that by writing books to popular audiences he qualifies as "more notable than the average college professor". Cesiumfrog (talk) 06:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

(i) I'm sorry but WP:FRINGE topics are full of thoroughly disreputable 'scientists' with science PhDs from major research universities. In such cases, the PhD merely indicates that they should know better. A scientist who publishes in such disreputable WP:FRINGE sources as Origins has lost any claim to being a "reputable scientist". (ii) I would question whether "being studied at SDA institutions" would qualify for WP:NB (due to the very narrow, sectarian readership). But regardless, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and a single notable book does not confer notability on its author. (iii) The passage that you quoted is mere prefatory remarks, not the detailed guidelines -- which in Brand's case is WP:ACADEMIC. (iv) You have presented no evidence of "significant creationism advocacy" -- neither Brand nor SDA is currently at the forefront of YEC advocacy -- most probably because Evangelical YEC advocates tend to downplay its SDA roots. (v) And as I have pointed out, it is not uncommon these days to see a creationist with a science PhD from major research university -- so that, in and of itself, does not confer any notability. (vi) Again what is required is significant, reliable third-party coverage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Disagreement with removal of Brand's papers

I disagree with with the removal certain publications of Dr. Brand from his bibliography. Selectively removing papers that an author has published in public sources simply because they are fringe only creates a very biased, distorted, and sanitized picture of that author. Even though a paper might be fringe in nature, it still provides a valuable indication of a person's worldview, although an editor might disagree with he or she stands on various controversies. Although publications might be considered fringe, they provide an important insight into the person's world outlook and primary sources where interested parties can learn about the person's point of view. Deleting citations to fringe material in the bibliography of Dr. Brand is the same as deleting all refer to fringe material, which they published, in the bibliographies of Michael Cremo, Graham Hancock, and Zecharia Sitchin. For example, the below publications provide the reader of the article about Dr. Brand very specific information about where he stands on the interface or science and religion.

• Brand, L. R. 1996b. "The Paradigm of Naturalism, Compared with a Viable Alternative: A Scientific Philosophy for the Study of Origins." Origins., 23(1):6-34.
• Brand, L.R. 1997. Faith, Reason, and Earth History: A Paradigm of Earth and Biological Origins by Intelligent Design. Andrews Univ. Press, 1997. ISBN 1-883925-15-0.
• Brand, L.R. 2004. "A Biblical Perspective on the Philosophy of Science." 2nd Symposium on the Bible and Adventist Scholarship Juan Dolio, Dominican Republic March 15-20, 2004. Institute for Christian Teaching Education Department, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.
• Brand, L.R. 2006. "A Biblical Perspective on the Philosophy of Science." Origins 59:6-42.Paul H. (talk) 14:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)Paul H. (talk) 14:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It is against Wikipedia policy to provide a venue for WP:INDISCRIMINATE listing of all a topic's publications, particularly where (i) they are explicitly titled as a "Selected bibliography" & (ii) where an EL to the topic's full list of publications is provided. If the publications in question genuinely give important insight into the topic's worldview, then I would suggest that you concentrate your time on finding reliable third-party sources that discuss these insights. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 15:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The two papers that I restored are not WP:INDISCRIMINATE listing of all a topic's publications. I apologize for the first change.Paul H. (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Notability

Third party sourcing to date amounts to a bare mention in a footnote in The Creationists and a few brief discussions of his Coconino Sandstone claims (which are, at best, WP:BLP1E, and so should be merged into some article on the subject of creationism, e.g. Flood geology, if they need to be covered at all). This is not "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's be more specific about a few likely things that would each suffice to establish notability:

• Per WP:PROF(.1), has been an author of highly cited academic work, considering reviews of the person's work, published in selective academic publications, or the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept.. or idea. This appears to be satisfied by his paper suggesting that flowing water might be an explanation for areas of fossil tracks in which the feet are all oriented in the same direction regardless of the track direction, since not only has this paper been well cited but multiple articles solely in response to this concept have been published in highest impact science journals such as Nature.
• The person has created a significant or well-known collective body of work, that has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles per WP:AUTH would be satisfied if any of his areas of work are highly cited in theological literature.
• Per WP:PROF(.4) if the person has authored several books that are widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education would be satisfied if some of his books appear in course text lists at a couple different SDA universities.

Cesiumfrog (talk) 00:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

1. It is highly inaccurate to claim that Brand's Coconino work is "highly cited" or "a significant new concept". His work garnered a moderate amount of coverage, which debunked his conclusions. In science, going down a blind alley seldom yields you much notability.
2. Your second claim is both bizarre and unsubstantiated. How does being "highly cited in theological literature" (even if demonstrated) yield notability as a scientist? Also "significant or well-known" would preclude coverage only in SDA theological publications.
3. Please note that the criteria states "widely used" -- not 'narrowly used solely within the author's own sect'.

You have failed to notice the following caveat:

It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject.

Regardless of the individual criteria (which it is highly debatable whether Brand passes) substantial reliable, independent coverage is still required.

Given that you appear to be offering no defence of his notability, that amounts to much more than 'the SDA thinks he's the bee's knees', It's probably time to take this to an AfD. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 02:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I was responding narrowly in this section to notability. I mentioned WP:AUTH in reference to his notability also as an academic, not a scientist (you seem to imply that nobody could be notable as a theologian). Cesiumfrog (talk) 03:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The article makes no mention of him "as a theologian" -- so why should I take him seriously as such? For me to take this seriously, again would require "reliable, independent sources" on the claim. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

FYI, scopus counts 72-95 (scientific) citations of his work. Far as I can tell, he has a couple thousand google hits, and a sizeable proportion refer to his theological writings. As for reliable sources, are you discounting the comment articles in Nature, etc? Cesiumfrog (talk) 04:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:GOOGLEHITS≠notability. A total of 72-95 citations is hardly indicative of notability. The comment articles don't amount to "significant coverage" & don't go beyond WP:BLP1E. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Lousy writing

"Leonard Brand has been" WP:WEASELLED by DonaldRichardSands with an appalling misuse of the passive voice to make it appear that a very brief mention of a Kurt Wise by another book was some form of monumental achievement. Hrafn has been totally disgusted by this abuse of the English language and and this ludicrously over-strtched WP:UNDUE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 00:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Hrafn, we meet again. I don't claim to be very good at English. I have noted that Wikipedia encourages people, like myself, to get involved. Then, those editors who are better at English can come along and help. AGF.

• WP:Competence is required. Wikipedia has whole pages full of advice trying to tell you not to write that way and not to write more than the source actually said on the subject (which is rather hard to avoid doing when you write more than the source did on the subject). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

@Hrafn: You cite an essay, an opinion piece, not Wikipedia policy to support your opinions. Please be clear when citing opinions so editors don't mistake them for policy when you choose to castigate newer editors or editors who attempt to contribute to the English Wikipedia in their 2nd or 3rd languages but do not have English as their first language. How many languages have you, yourself, mastered? Veriss (talk) 06:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

@Clueless busybody: actually no -- I also cited p_o_l_i_c_y (WP:NPOV at WP:DUE). A policy as it happens that WP:WEASEL is directly relevant to (at other sections) -- WP:YESPOV: "Avoid stating opinions as facts." And no, WP:Manual of Style (words to watch) is in fact not an essay, it is a manual of style, and as such a formal guideline to show us how to write articles that aren't "lousy". Please have a WP:TROUT and get a clue. 06:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Mmmmm, personal ad hominem attacks, could be juicy if they were more creative. Ad hominem attacks are usually entertaining though rarely productive in the long run, especially for those who launch them. I love grilled trout, are you serving rainbow or cutthroat? It seems I need to give you 48 hours to cool off here as well. Cheers, Veriss (talk) 06:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

More lousy writing -- based upon a self-published source, to boot

No Alston does not 'commend' Brand for "admitting that the scriptures influence his intelligent design orientation and the developing of his scientific hypotheses" -- he neither makes explicit approval of disapproval -- he simply notes the fact -- nor does he use the word "openly", nor does he talk about Brand's "Contribution" to the debate. This is all exaggerated bullshit. It is also in violation of WP:YESPOV's prohibition to "Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Hrafn, you are not collaborating to improve the article. Your criticism is appreciated but your hostile attitude is not. It is time, perhaps, to request a neutral admin to help us. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 06:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I am "hostile" to really bad writing -- it sets my teeth on edge. What of it? You are saying things that are not in fact in the cited source. This is WP:OR, and as such is not permitted. If you want to claim otherwise, then please point to where Alston commends (i.e. states approval of) Brand, rather than simply stating what Brand admitted to. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Now that you admitted that nobody is 'commending' Brand, why are we bothering mentioning Alston by name? He isn't a well-known name and the claim is in no way controversial so we should "avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion" by simply stating this as a fact, rather than as something Alston "noted". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

As it turns out, Alston shouldn't be here at all -- the book's self-published. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Still more lousy writing

Brand is recognized for bringing a civil approach to the Creation-Evolution debate and for admitting his use of the Bible in helping him develop his research hypotheses.

WP:PEACOCK & WP:WEASEL, passive-voiced, duplicative, unattributed, unverifiable editorialising BULLSHIT! DonaldRichardSands would you please cease and desist intruding your own opinions into the article! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Still still more lousy writing

Taphonomy is the study of the environmental conditions affecting the fossilization of animal or plant remains.

Given that the article makes no further mention of taphonomy, why should the reader care? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• I agree. Yet, I plan to develop the section to make it better. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 04:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Table of Contents (TOC) and article development

Hrafn, Perhaps one of the reasons you have nominated this article for deletion is that notability has not been demonstrated. It seems a poor show of good faith for the person who nominates the article for deletion to not allow its TOC development. To me, this seems to undermine the very effort to develop the article. Isn't such undermining a lack of good faith and a conflict of interest? Please allow some time to develop the article within a TOC structure. If you cannot agree, I suggest that we get a neutral admin to help resolve our differences. Thanks. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 06:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I really don't know what you're getting into a state about. I (i) removed __NOTOC__ here because I thought it was unnecessary. I realised that it wasn't so restored it 10 minutes later. There is no vast conspiracy. There are however a couple of completely exaggerated and needless section titles -- but that can wait for now. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Field definitions

Why are we defining each of Brand's claimed fields? They are linked to in the lead, so anybody wanting a definition can find one very quickly.

• I agree. I think I started with the definitions for my own thinking. All of this is very new to me. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 04:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

(Also, can we get agreement on eliminating Alston, per above. It is a WP:SPS, therefore per WP:SELFPUB can only be used about Alston himself & his activities.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, the Alston citation has been eliminated, hasn't it? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 04:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• It has -- but I was trying (unsuccessfully) to get your agreement first, rather than opening the door for edit-warring on the subject. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Lousy duplication

• Calling a professor both a "biologist" and an "educator" is lousy duplication.
• Stating first that

Brand is recognized for bringing a civil approach to the Creation-Evolution debate and for admitting his use of the Bible in helping him develop his research hypotheses.

...and then that...

In a forward to Brand's book, Faith Reason and Earth History, prominent young Earth creationist Kurt Wise applauds the book for breaking free from the "science bashing spirit" prevalent in creationist literature. Sociologist and evolution advocate Jon P. Alston notes that Brand admits that the scriptures have influenced his intelligent design orientation and in his developing of scientific hypotheses.

...is lousy duplication (quite apart from the fact that Alston is a WP:SPS, so shouldn't be in there at all).

• Stating that:

He is presently a professor of biology and paleontology in the Department of Earth and Biological Sciences (School of Science and Technology) at Loma Linda University, as well as the department Chair.

...then stating two sentences after:

Leonard Brand is the chair of Loma Linda University's department of Earth and Biological Sciences.

...is lousy duplication.

If DonaldRichardSands wants to whine about my "hostility", I am hostile because I am getting really really tired of really really bad writing being thrust upon me, when I really really want to revert this appalling crap, but WP:3RR won't let me. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• You seem to want the article to be perfect right from the get go. First, the lead must be verified in the main body. When I begin the process of verifying, you get upset because there is duplication. I visualize this article to have some duplication in the same way a paragraph duplicates a feature of the theme sentence or lead. You want it all stated. I am doing the research for this article, you are too, sort of, by checking the sources I find. Rather than fighting my rough drafts, why not help shape those rough drafts into better wording. As long as you are helping rather than destroying, I don't care how many times you change things, revert things. I wish you could be more patient with the drafting process. This article really should be developed in a Sandbox setting, but then I would not have your help in making it better. Patience, Patience. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 10:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• NO! I want you to cease and desist making the article worse! I want you to think about what you're doing first, rather than simply flailing around randomly. Adding material that duplicates material already in the article makes the article worse. Adding claims (e.g. "commended") not in the cited source makes the article worse. Unattributed opinions make the article worse (as does insisting upon attributing "noted" statements of simple fact). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 03:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think I am making the article worse. It certainly is getting shaped as it develops. I think it is getting better. The process is messy, but in three months who will even know it was so messy. Remember, articles which you criticize actual get looking quite respectable. :) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 04:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you wanted this article deleted, didn't you? Its hard to work with someone who really wants your work to disappear. I recall reading someone who praised your input on an article because of how it looked in the end. I believe if we keep at this article, it to will become quite a positive accomplishment. It certainly seems painful for you and I truly am sorry about that. I do appreciate your help. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 10:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I think this article should be deleted -- what has that got to do with saying everything twice? It's not nearly as hard to "work with someone who really wants your work to disappear" as with somebody who cannot edit their way out of a wet paper bag! Somebody overwhelmingly in love with appalling, passive-voiced, unattributedly weaselley phrasing. Somebody who feels the need to 'commend' the topic without any reason in the source. Somebody who seems unable to recognise an unreliable source. Somebody who insists on dumping unnecessary definitions and superfluous descriptors into the article. Somebody who scatters a detritus of unused subtitles and unfinished fragments. To be bluntly honest, even if I wasn't already convinced that this topic was non-notable, I might be looking for a reason to get this article deleted out of shear horror of its determined and ever-renewing WP:UGLYness. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 03:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Good thing I thrive on criticism, huh. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 04:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

"Contribution to Creation-Evolution Debate"?

I would note that neither Davis & Stearley nor Giberson & Yerxa place Brand in context of 'evolution' or the 'debate'. The former place him in the context of Flood geology, and the latter of "scientific creationism" (aka 'creation science'). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 08:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• I also considered that but wanted to keep it simple. Maybe there is a better word than "debate". I view the whole setting of different views on origins as "debate". Of course it really isn't that. Rather, it is the whole realm of views regarding origins. Flood geology is part of the Creationist side of the equation. You are correct that the term, "Flood Geology" is used, but its all part of the creationist's view. Creationists believe the Bible, in this context that means they believe that Genesis 1-11 are factual, i.e. literal, scientific events. This includes the flood chapters (6-9). They all go together for the creationists side of the Evolution-Creation debate, spectrum, or whatever. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 10:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

(I would also rather doubt if many scientists consider what creationists add to the "debate" to be a "contribution" -- I suspect they'd be more likely to term it as 'exacerbation' or similar. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 08:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC) )

• I think you are probably right. That is Lockley's point. If scientists really want to bring creationist into the realm of science they need to change their seeming arrogance and try coaxing. You should try it sometime. lol. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 10:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

"I don't think I am making the article worse."

DRS: you say that you don't think you're making the article worse, but consider:

• Is adding information, cited to the backissue of an SDA newsletter, that Brand won a $50 book prize really improving the article?

• I suggest that it is biographical material of interest to Wikipedia readers. This demonstrates Brand's notability within the College community. This scholarship, though small in dollar value is still being offered by Colleges across California. He was one of the very first to receive it. Plus, the author of the scholarship is an interesting figure in the history of biology in California. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 05:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Is adding material to the 'Scientific Career and Research' section for which the only third-party source is an article in Creation -- not a reliable scientific source by any stretch of the imagination -- improving the article?

• I will have to look that over. Another editor, a geologist, helped develop that section. If the information is factual, it may not be a reliable 'scientific' source but it is a reliable source, generally. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 05:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Is adding the unsourced fragment "One Brand's earliest scientific articles was on" improving the article?

• This will be sourced. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 05:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Is splitting material on Brand's fossil tracks claims between the 'Scientific Career and Research' & 'Contribution to Creation-Evolution Debate' improving the article? Or does it simply confuse the reader into believing that Wise & Lockley are not writing about Brand's Coconino Sandstone claims?

• The information can certainly be consolidated. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 05:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I am asking you to think before your write:

1. To know where you intend the passage to end before you start it

• Sorry, I don't know how to write that way. For me, writing Wikipedia articles is like doing a work of art, it develops and shapes as one writes, faces criticism, etc. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 05:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

1. To be sure that what you are saying is actually what the source said

• I agree that I can do better on this. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 05:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

1. To be certain that this is the sort of information that is appropriate for an article on a prominent scientist (not just all the information that you can find)

• I disagree, somewhat. I do not include 'all the information I can find' believe me and be glad. lol. However, I do believe that biographical material especially is interesting and important. It may seem trivial at first, but as the article develops, all the small things help make the article whole. That $50 scholarship awarded by that unique California scientist who discovered that some birds hibernate; well that's kind of interesting, especially since Brand was only one of two students given the award and that it was the very first year the award was given. Hundreds of students all across California have since received the award. Little things are important. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 05:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

1. To have an awareness of how the material fits in with the rest of the article

• I agree with the need for such awareness. For me, that awareness is part of the work of art I mentioned above. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 05:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

These are very basic issues for creating an article that is not a 'dog's breakfast' style mess. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• It is good that you can write that way. I wish I could. Fortunately, Wikipedia tells me to start editing and others, older and wiser, like yourself, will come along and assume good faith and help me; as you are doing. :) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 05:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Well you certainly turned that section into a complete, unreadable shambles

1. No, a $50 book prize is not "biographical material of interest" it is mindless banal inconsequential TRIVIA! Unsubtle hint: if nobody other than Adventists have bothered to comment on it, then there's a very good chance that nobody other than Adventists have any interest.
2. The point was not so much that the fragment was unsourced but that it was unfinished and didn't say anything comprehensible -- if you can't be bothered finishing your sentences on mainspace -- THEN DON'T BLOODY WELL START THEM!
3. Most artists do not simply throw paint at their canvas and slosh it around -- they have some intention as to what result will look like. Please attempt a similar discipline.
4. This is an encyclopaedia NOT Uncle Leonard's fireside anecdotes -- a certain level of formality, and of substance is required.

I would point out that it is axiomatic that being qualified to write an encyclopaedia article involves knowing how to write an encyclopaedia article. Again, WP:Competence is required. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Brand specializes in the Philosophy of Science

The lead states: He specializes in ... (the) philosophy of science.[not verified in body]

• Thus, to mention that he teaches a university course in the philosophy of science seems quite relevant. Actually, this fall he will be teaching three different philosophy of science courses at the university.

• We have only begun to develop this section. Brand's specializing in the philosophy of science is probably the easiest of all his specialties to document. Keep in mind that these courses, like all others, must pass examination by the government accreditation boards. His course outlines must be representative of the philosophy of science discipline.

• Brand's book Faith, Reason and Earth History includes 6 chapter on the philosophy of science.

• He has presented a lecture on the topic: the text of which is available online.

• Brand's philosophy of science concepts are especially educational for creationists who are prone to say things that are not correct about science.

No:

1. The lead states: "He specializes in taphonomy, ichnology, vertebrate paleontology, mammalogy, and philosophy of science."[not verified in body]
   • The tag is for the whole list, not just "philosophy of science"
   • I'm willing to concede that ichnology is well-documented, but taphonomy & philosophy of science are poorly so (no reliable secondary sources) and vertebrate paleontology & mammalogy remain completely unverified.
2. The fact that he teaches a course in philosophy of science does not demonstrate he has a specialisation in this field. Academics, particularly in smaller or sparser departments, often have to teach courses outside their specialisation.
3. The rest of your claims appear to be WP:OR. Please cite WP:SECONDARY sources for your claims.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• I am still developing those sections. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 05:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Please

• stop

• making

• a

• complete

• shambles

• of

• my

• comments

• by

• inserting

• you

• own

• indiscriminately

• into

• the

• middle

• of them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• I quite sure that I can demontrate his specialization in philosophy of science. Recall that the course must be acceptable to the government. That alone indicates a level of specialization. I am not suggesting that Brand is a recognized philosopher of science; rather I am saying that he specializes in it; i.e it is a major professional interest of his. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 05:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

More on Brand's Philosophy of Science

The following is how the Philosophy of Science section read on August 9 at 7:19 a.m. I suggest that we change it as seems appropriate and then after the text section we should add our reasons for changing things. Hopefully as we do this on the article's talk page it will help us develop some consensus on this:

Leonard Brand presents his philosophy of science views in writing, at seminars, creationist conventions, church meetings, and as a lecturer in the classroom. In 2009, the second edition of his book Faith, Reason, and Earth History, was published by Andrews University Press. On their website for the book, they say that it "presents Leonard Brand’s argument for constructive thinking about origins and earth history in the context of Scripture, showing readers how to analyze available scientific data and approach unsolved problems. Faith does not need to fear the data, but can contribute to progress in understanding earth history within the context of God’s Word while still being honest about unanswered questions." The first edition, published in 1997, was one of the first books books by a Creationist author who was also an experienced research scientist. As a professor of the Earth and Biological Sciences department at Loma Linda University, he teaches three courses on the Philosophy of Science. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 11:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Ideas for improving this philosophy section

1. Seminars, Creationist Conventions, Church meetings: The word 'seminar' may not be useful. It is different in meaning but also seems redundant. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 11:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

2. Sources: Sources for each assertion in this paragraph need to be found DonaldRichardSands (talk) 11:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

3. Features: The features of Brand's Philosophy of Science should be described. These features include:

• Respect for all even with those one disagrees.
• Believers can develop good science questions and hypotheses from the problems and ideas that they experience because of their Faith in an interventionist God. eg. Since they believe in a world-wide flood, were those tracks made underwater? How can you study this question? What kind of hypothesis would guide the proposed research?
• Analytical Philosophy. Believers need to be careful what they assert? Some statements are just plain wrong; scientifically unsubstantiated. Brand points to the idea that dinosaur tracks and human foot prints show up together as an example of naive, misguided, lack of understanding of the evidence.
• Perhaps others

• All these need to be sourced and explained better. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 11:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Whale Taphonomy work

Why is this work noteworthy? I'm finding it difficult to find a reliable third-party source that does more than give a bare citation of it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• There is no doubt that Brand does Taphonomical research. It seems an academic problem to find secondary sources that say so. I do plan to do just that, but again the exercise is a legalistic need to meet the rules. The fact is obvious. A side note: Brand also did Taphonomical research regarding turtles. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 06:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• No. It is not "legalistic". It is about demonstrating that his research in this field had sufficient importance to be worth mentioning in this article. Wikipedia does not WP:INDISCRIMINATEly include all information on a topic: "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Turtle Taphonomy work

• Another major part of Brand's research is of fossilized turtles in Wyoming's Bridger formation. I have not looked for the notability or significance of such work, yet. There is available online a video lecture that Brand gives on his work with the Turtle fossils. He explains why they decided to study the turtles; no other scientists were interested in them. I think this is an example of faith playing a role in helping a scientist ask researchable questions. Brand decided to study the turtles because, unlike other creatures, turtles remain the same over the geologic periods. Creationists wonder about such apparent non-evolutionary existence. I imagine that this appreciation of the 'non-evolving' turtle led Brand to study them. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 06:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• His belief in creation and the importance these turtles might shed on the Creation-Evolution dialogue influenced Brand to study them. This is what Brand means when he says that one's belief in a creator God can help the scientist to ask different questions than his naturalistic friends and thus lead to bonafide, yet different, hypotheses. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 06:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Brand's scientific methods and research cannot be described as pseudoscience. His questions and consequent hypotheses are sound scientific constructs which, though different than his naturalistic fellows, are respected as creative and interesting. His belief in the literal history of Genesis 1-11 may seem odd to his naturalistic associates, but his scientific methods have never been seriously questioned, as far as I know. Brand is a careful respected scientist who believes in a literal recent six day creation and world-wide flood. This is an odd combination. I suggest that there are probably many scientists who hold odd views along with their doing quality science. The rigor of the peer review process keeps them on the straight and narrow, so to speak. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 06:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Third party sourcing? No? Not interested! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Are scientific journal reports and their abstracts unacceptable primary sources

Primary Sources are not completely ruled out by Wikipedia protocol. If an editor states that a scientist studied chipmunks and cites a journal publishing the chipmunk research, is that an unacceptable scientific source? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 06:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• They are not, but they are explicitly subordinated to secondary sources -- so it is generally considered inappropriate for an article to wander into areas for which no secondary/third-party sources exists. For one thing the shear bulk of primary sources would always tend to overwhelm secondary, if we did not apply that limiting factor. The result would be a very bland, confusing and uninformative recitation of the scientist's papers. We rely on secondary/third party sources to tell us what's important -- we rely on primary sources to fill in the details thereafter. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  Not only is this explicitly stated in WP:PSTS, it is also implicit in WP:INDISCRIMINATE -- if we allowed all primary sources in, we'd end up with an article that indiscriminately covered all information available on the topic, regardless of relative importance. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Reliability of Origins and Design journal

The tag should be removed until Origins and Design is shown to be unreliable. In the realm of Creationism and Intelligent Design, the journal Origins and Design has not been shown to be unreliable. What makes it unreliable? Has Wikipedia discussed Origins and Design and reached a consensus on its unreliability? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• As should be patently obvious "the realm of Creationism and Intelligent Design" is the WP:FRINGE realm of unreliable sources. Origins and Design is prima facie unreliable -- if you want to argue this, then you're welcome to take it to WP:RSN. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 01:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, the WP:RSN has quite a discussion about a similar journal, perhaps even of the same organization, I think it is called the Creation Journal. There are several points that I recall. These Christian journals are reliable sources when they report on church-type things. If Wise (a creationist), for example, explains what Brand (a creationist) is saying, this is okay as a reliable source so long as the journal has a careful editorial policy. If Wise challenged Lockley, that would be considered less reliable because Lockley is an expert on tracks whereas Wise is not. Origins and Design and the Creation Journal both have rigorous editorial policies for their mission. If they report on whether a scientific study is correct or not, then that makes that particular report unreliable. So, the task is to determine whether the generally reliable source is keeping to its realm. Another practice which helps deal with reliability issues is to openly attribute who said what. You will notice that I changed the info of Wise to attribute the material right in the article. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

1. The only such journal I can find in the WP:RSN archives is Creation/Evolution Journal, a publication of the National Center for Science Education, an affiliate of the American Association for the Advancement of Science -- which clearly is not comparable.
   • There are many things reported which are not "science" or "theology". A carefully edited journal is reliable on these many other things. For example, Wise's review of Brand's book seems quite a reliable thing. Its not science. It might be theology. What is a book review? It reports. Is the report reliable? Yes, if the editorial policy is rigorous and reflective. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 05:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
     • Origins and Design purports to be science, but is not -- hence pseudoscience. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
2. Christian journals are WP:RS for matters of Christian theology, not pseudoscience. For example they would be RS for the claim that it is theologically important to believe in a historical Adam, but not for the historical existence of Adam. Origins and Design clearly falls into the latter category.
   • Brand does bonafide scientific research, it is not pseudoscience. His book contains philosophy of science, not pseudoscience. Brand is a careful scientific thinker. I don't know Wise very well, but he seems respected beyond the Creationist community. Here you have two men who love science and believe the Bible, too? I think the journal, "Origins and Design" should be commended for their careful editorial policy. The Creation Journal, as well. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 05:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
     • One of the definitions of science is that it is consistent -- it makes claims that are consistent with the results and conclusions of related fields. From what I have read Brand falls down rather badly on this front. But regardless of how Brand's own work is considered, this journal is not accepted as science. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
       • I agree that Origins and Design is not accepted by the science community as a science journal. However, the article citations do not cite it for its science. It cites it for its book review by one creationist of another creationist's work. The realm, if any, is Philosophy rather than science. Brands book is a book of philosophy. He reports his scientific research, but the intent of the book is Philosophy; in particular it attempts to show how Faith and Science can work together, this is either Philosophy of Faith and Philosophy of Science. Either way, WP policy accepts journals of religion which report on their field in a responsible manner. Origins and Design has never been accused of being unreliable on mattes within its realm of creationism. Thus, for purposes not scientific, I consider it a Reliable source by WP standards. I would like to see this discussed thoroughly by a group of veteran admins who can give answers to the point I am trying to make. Hrafn, I admire your experience and knowledge of Wikipedia, but you are not an admin. I certainly am not near being equal to your expertise, but I would like us to have some admins who are kind of experts on reliable sources to help us think this out. I have read the Reliable Sources WP sections and have noted the fine line they draw. The Fringe discussion is interesting, especially. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 08:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
   • One point made in the Reliable Sources discussion is that sometimes the question of Reliable Sources needs to be answered on a case by case basis so long as the journal itself has a properly managed editorial policy. Thus is this case where Wise reviews Brand. What is unreliable about it? Origins and Design state clearly their careful editorial policy. Wise has studied Brand's book. Wise thinks carefully. He reports his thinking on Brand's book. Now, if we are going to demonstrate that Brand is respected in the Creationist community, Wise's thinking about Brand is clearly important. How can notability in the Creationist community be demonstrated if only secular science journals are considered reliable? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 05:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
     • I would suggest that what "care" they engage in has more to do with ideological purity than scientific accuracy. It is, at best, a questionable source, so cannot be used for information about a third party. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
       • This is speculation on your part; your own opinion. We all have our biases. It is interesting how we will accept science journals as reliable for science but we will not accept a carefully edited Creation journal as reliable for its report on a Creationist book. This seems to be a problem of bias. Newspapers like the Toronto Star or the New York Times are Reliable Sources but they are not Reliable regarding Scientific conclusions, based on their scientific judgment, unless of course the journalist is also a scientist. They can report on the science, but what they say is not authoritatively reliable about science.
         • How ridiculously WP:POT of you. This is far less "speculative" than your Pollyannaish faith in this worthless rag's editorial policy. I am familiar with both the editor and the publisher -- neither has the slightest shred of credibility. Take it to WP:RSN -- I'm not buying. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 08:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
           • The WP:POT essay is quite interesting. I find this quote especially of interest:
             • "It happens quite often on Wikipedia that an editor makes a post to remind others of civility but writes it in an uncivil tone. Occasionally, someone will call other people names while at the same time reminding them to not make personal attacks. And of course there are always those that assume that others aren't assuming good faith, or people in an edit war that claim that no, it's the other party that's edit warring."
           • It seems I have offended you by saying you are speculating. The journal published a book review by Kurt Wise. How can that be unreliable? It is hard for me to accept that the journal doesn't have 'the slightest shred of credibility'. Hrafn, you are not an authority on this; nor am I. You have strong opinions; so do I. If we can't agree, perhaps we should request a neutral admin to help us with this. Sooner or later an admin is going to have to decide on whether to Delete or Keep this article. I think it has vastly improved since you nominated it for deletion on August 4; thanks in a large part to you, IMO. We could not have identified the article's weaknesses without your help. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 09:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
       • I know one columnist for a major newspaper who is a creationist. He opinionates about many civic matters and certainly would be a reliable source for some of these city matters. His creationist views do not make what he says on unrelated matters unreliable. The Wikipedia rules regarding reliability need careful thought.
       • I have learned to identify bias in my own patterns of thought. Everyone needs to do that. As we identify our own biases, we can write more objectively. Wise writing about Brand's philosophy has nothing to do with science, per se. But the fact that Wise is a creationist and writing in a creationist journal does not disqualify him from accurately reporting on Brand's book. To say so is to say that because Wise is a creationist, he can't be trusted to be honest and to tell the truth. Or, because the editors of Origins and Design have openly declared their creationist views this disqualifies them to report on a non-science matter. This is like saying that creationists cannot be trusted on anything because they promote what the scientific community calls pseudoscience. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 08:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
3. Oh, and your claim that "the tag should be removed until Origins and Design is shown to be unreliable" is erroneous. The tag should stay up as long as the source is under dispute (that is what the tag is there for). When there is a consensus that it is "unreliable", the citation needs to be removed, not simply tagged.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 02:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Point taken, I agree. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 05:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, incidentally, not only is it not reliable, but it is also not independent -- having the same person who wrote a book's forward also write a review of it is more than a little tacky. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• When I looked over Wise's 'review', I wondered if this was the forward to the book just reprinted. Whatever the case, the notion of independence needs some further exploration. If Wise and Brand are friends, do they sacrifice their independence. Wise shows his independence by his candid disagreement with Brand on important issues. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 05:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• But at the end of the day DRS, there is no way that you are going to convince me that such a blatantly WP:FRINGE & pseudoscientific source as Origins and Design, or its publisher, the Access Research Network (whose article I am in fact the main author of -- so I have a very good idea how unreliable they are), is reliable, or useable as an opinion about a third party (against the clear guidance of WP:ABOUTSELF). If you want to take this further, you really have to take it to WP:RSN. 08:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
• Further exacerbating this issue is the fact that we do in fact have a reliable secondary source for Wise's views on Brand in Giberson & Yerxa -- which was eliminated in favour of this worthless rag. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 08:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or lacking meaningful editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below. They are unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties.

— WP:NOTRELIABLE

ID advocates in general (which covers ARN), and Paul Nelson (O&D's editor) in particular have "a poor reputation for checking the facts". They are "widely acknowledged as extremist". It is not a reliable source. If you want to claim otherwise, then TAKE IT TO WP:RSN! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 08:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• • When did we eliminate Giberson and Yerxa? I don't recall doing that. Let's put it back in. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 09:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, I was wrong -- it's still in there (in a different section). So why do we need to include Wise's opinion of Brand twice (in two different sections, but both times in relation to the exact same book)? This would seem both muddled & WP:UNDUE weight, quite apart from the reliability issue. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 10:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Another really really unreliable source

http://www.rareresource.com/paleontologists/Leonard-R-Brand.html falls under WP:CIRCULAR so is patently unreliable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 01:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• I agree. I looked it over some time ago and decided not to use it. I did not put this citation in. Another editor did. (There have been a few other editors helping develop the article besides you and I. I don't think it will be hard to find a better source for this, I just haven't gotten around to it yet. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 04:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• In my opinion, the article is looking much better, and reading better. I like how you have trimmed and shaped things. Brand's philosophical views especially the notion that belief in an interventionist God can help scientist, such as himself, come up with valid scientific questions which lead to hypotheses which can be scientifically investigated. Brand loves science and he believes in a very literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11 which includes the flood. His belief in a world-wide flood led to his investigation of those Arizona Salamander tracks. His conclusions have been strongly challenged, but his scientific methodology, procedures, and thought processes have been respectfully acknowledged by scores of secular scientists. Brand often mentions his 'atheistic' associates and he does so with a positive regard. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 04:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

A balanced summary of "Comment and reply on ‘Fossil vertebrate footprints in the Coconino Sandstone (Permian) of northern Arizona: Evidence for underwater origin’"?

Were Lockley's main points really that "Brand and Tang had made a helpful contribution to the field" & that "Brand and Tang are to be congratulated for a thorough experimental study, which presents more Coconino track data than have appeared at any time since the inaugural studies of Gilmore."? That seems highly unlikely. DonaldRichardSands: you have a very bad habit of cherry-picking praise out of generally critical material. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 02:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Hrafn, I don't think I have said these are the main points. But Lockley did say them and it is quite significant that he did so. The first of WP's notability guidelines states: " 'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." WP:SIGCOV

• Then it constitutes an inaccurate, unbalanced and misleading summary of Lockley's article. Further, WP:Notability is irrelevant to this issue, which is one of WP:NPOV, not notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 03:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• You moved the quote, made it try to serve a different purpose and then say this about the quote. The quotes, both of Lockley and Loope are significant because they acknowledge some positive things about Brand's work. Also, these quotes really come from Creationist writers who quote Lockley and Loope. The original article is a subscription article so we cannot verify the whole context. However, when scientists spar with these creationists, they do not challenge the quotes. Lockley and Loope's positive statements of Brand should be included in this article. They are significant in establishing recognition of Brand doing respected science. My goal is to demonstrate this reality. This is one of Brand's notable features. In his life of faith, he is a young earth creationist and he is also notable for doing respectable scientific research. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 04:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• I moved it into its proper context -- and the context that Lockley himself wrote the article -- discussion of Brand's footprint claims. It WAS NOT written in the context of Brand's "Contribution to Creation-Evolution Debate". And NO "significant" does not mean 'anything that says something nice about Brand, no matter how tangential or trivial. Cherry-picking it for these claims is blatant POV-pushing Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• I see your point. I still consider their positive statements about Brand important especially when Creationists are debunked for their "nonsense". I think our Wikipedia readership should know that Lockley and Loope not only disagree with Brand but they also find his scientific inquiry somewhat interesting. This says important things about all three scientists. In a time when creationists and naturalistic scientists speak against and past each other, this mutual respect among these three scientists is impressive and noteworthy, IMO. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 05:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• I would further suggest that the article in question most probably made no mention whatsoever of Creation, Creationism, Evolution, or a "debate" between the two -- so that your placing of Lockley's comments into that context was pure WP:Synthesis. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• I agree again. I do appreciate you taking the time to help me think this out. Yes, it is their positive attitude toward each other that I am interested in demonstrating for the article. I agree that anything more is synthesis. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 05:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Importance versus notability

I think we're getting back into the issue of importance (in some general sense) versus notability (in the specific Wikipedia sense). Yes, creationists like Brand & Kurt Wise are far more substantive than more colorful\ rivals such as Kent Hovind or Ray Comfort. However, this lack of colour means that they tend not to be written about so much in mainstream sources. And their lack of grenade-tossing fire means that they get seen as less of a threat by anti-creationists, who likewise will tend to write less about them than about more incendiary culture-warriors. That doesn't mean that they're worth less -- far from it, but it does mean that there's far less to base an article on -- which leads to AfD nominations. The easiest way to get yourself an article on Wikipedia (particularly during your own life time) is to screw up royally (especially criminally -- but even simply making a fool of yourself will often do the trick). Brand hasn't done so to date -- so is finding it a bit of a struggle getting/staying in the door. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• I like your assessment. It is candid and insightful. It also serves notice that the Brand article development will continue to be more difficult than some others. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 05:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Is it accurate to describe Brand as an Ichnologist...

...or as a specialist in Ichnology, when our main source on the issue, Lockley, clearly thinks otherwise. Lockley repeatedly refers to Brand as a biologist, and makes a point of saying "Though Brand is a biologist and can be excused for not fully understanding the geological implications of the hypothesis". Lockley clearly regards Brand as a Biologist who has dabbled a bit outside his area of expertise, rather than as a true specialist in the geological field of Ichnology. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 02:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• I agree. He should not be referred to as an Ichnologist. The Ichnologists we have noted, Lockley and Loope, seem tolerant of Brand. In their Comment item cited, they tell why Brand is wrong but they also commend him for his methodology; methodology in Ichnology. There is a considerable overlap in science when it comes to methodology. The problem is that Lockley and Loope are constantly studying tracks whereas Brand is not. His specialty is Taphonomy, that of Whales and Turtles. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 04:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Relationship to the GRI

How does Brand's university department relate to the Geoscience Research Institute, also at Loma Linda University? (I rewrote the article on it a few years back.) It struck me as odd that the university lumped both Biology and Geology (two fields that only have a fairly thin overlap in Palaeontology) into the same department -- the more so when I now realise they have a whole institute on one of those branches on the same campus. But, as I can't see Brand listed on the GRI's research staff, I'm forced to conclude that they're largely independent of each other. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• I don't know his present relationship with GRI. I have found one document, so far, mentioning a connection. The document is from the early 70s. GRI, as mentioned in the article you worked on, has had internal controversy. Adventists consider themselves seekers for truth and have a high regard for 'science' and scientific inquiry. Brand is kind of a model Adventist that way. But, Hare and Ritland found themselves in a dilemma. Scientists like to follow the trail of evidence whereever it leads them; even in matters where faith and science intersect. Hare and Ritland found evidence for an ancient earth. Adventist administrators knew that this was highly problematic and like 'good' administrators opposed the conclusions. GRI under Hare and Ritland was a scientific organization, primarily. Later on it became an apologetic organization with interests in the faith-science realm and with interest in doing science inspired by questions raised by one's faith (thus, Brand's philosophical stance.)DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Part of the history of Adventism is this struggle of faith and science. Adventists generally believe they are faithful to both. And in the areas not dealing with evolution, geology, paleontolgy and really ancient things, Adventists do really good science, eg. Public health, medicine, etc. Adventists have run several faith and science conferences where the evidence for the age of the earth and evolution has been presented and frankly discussed. At one point, all the presentations were made available online. It was a wonderful collection of contemporary Adventist thought. But, alas, these presentations are no longer available online. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Anyway back to Brand and GRI, I believe the archival trail will reveal a certain connection. One interesting decision of GRI and I suspect that Brand helped with it: GRI has decided not to directly confront the research conclusions made by naturalistic scientists. Instead, they will do their own research. This attitude has helped folks like Brand to do their science in relative peace, removed from the controversy. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

God's own scientists: creationists in a secular world by Christopher P. Toumey, anthropologist

Toumey, Christopher P. (1994). God's own scientists: creationists in a secular world. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. p. 289. ISBN 0-8135-2043-6.

Note at Google Books says:

For more than five years, Christopher P. Toumey talked with contemporary creationists, joined in their Bible study and prayer groups, and interviewed their leaders in order to understand their heartfelt opposition to the idea of evolution. The modern creationist movement is, Toumey argues, much more than a narrow doctrine extrapolated from a handful of biblical verses; rather, it represents a broad cultural discontent with the moral disintegration of modern America--and a remarkable faith in science itself.

In chapter seven, Other Creationist Stances, Toumey profiles the Geoscience Research Institute. In doing so, he refers to Brand. He does not list Brand as one of the GRI staff interviewed. He quotes him as an authority for the Adventist Creationist stance.

Note this quote

DonaldRichardSands (talk) 03:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Toumey's book from pages 131-141 reports on GRI. He quite accurately explains the Adventist creationist stance and describes SDA history of Creationist views effectively. His historical section seems indebted mainly to Dr. Ron Numbers book on creation and provides many intext citations from Numbers. (IMO, Numbers has developed into an objective scholar and author. His recent book on creationists does much better in maintianing a neutral, scholarly stance than do his earlier writings.)

Anthropologist Toumey interviewed the GRI staff in 1983. He seems to have listened carefully and reports in a neutral manner. I am impressed with Toumey's careful report on what the staff shared with him. He lists the staff. Brand is not in the list. Later he mentions GRI and then says, "they said..." and then quotes Brand. Toumey considers Brand part of GRI. Toumey speaks of GRI as one unit. He quotes different of the GRI scientists but his discussion is of the GRI's (united) stance on issues.

More analysis of Toumey's GRI section to come... DonaldRichardSands (talk) 05:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Claims in lead

• "He teaches that one's belief in an interventionist deity can help in the forming of scientific hypotheses and bonafide scientific research."
  • This breaches WP:DUE by "represent[ing] content strictly from the perspective of the minority view" and failing "make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint" -- that of methodological naturalism

• This is an article about Brand. It refers to Brand's teachings. Do some people make a minority view statement that Brand teaches methodological naturalism? Not one available source presents such a minority view of Brand. Brand teaches a Creationist view. He does not teach methodological naturalism. Brand's view may be a minority view on an article about Creationism, but this article is about Brand. What the lead says about him is the majority view of what Brand teaches. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• No. It is Brand's teachings that are a "minority viewpoint", rejected by the majority of both the scientific community and the scholarly consensus on the philosophy of science. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• "His book Faith, Reason, and Earth History was one of the first books on the topic written by an experienced research scientist."
  • This fails to specify what "topic" it is claiming the book to be on.

• I think I have fixed that, thanks. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Except it now makes the absurd claim that "Faith, Reason, and Earth History was one of the first books on the topic of origins written by an experienced research scientist" -- I seem to remember a rather well known book on the subject, On the Origin of Species having beenb written by a research scientist well before this book -- and any number of them since. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• • No citation is given for it being "one of the first books" on any particular topic.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 14:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• I didn't think the lead needed the citation since a section in the main body of the text provided it. I have added the citation to the lead. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• It doesn't -- but it does need a better source than a publisher's blurb (which blurbs have a long history of being rejected by WP:RSN as unreliable sources). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

More dubious claims in the lead

• "his book is one of the first books on the topic, i.e. a paradigm to study earth and biological origins by intelligent design, written by an experienced research scientist."
  • Of Pandas and People? This is why we don't accept publisher's blurbs (and PR generally) as reliable sources.
• "He has studied the vocalizations of Chipmunks, the reproductive biology of mice, and the taphonomy of ... and turtles (Wyoming)."
  • Unsupported by the article text.
• "His research on salamander fossil tracks in the Grand Canyon has been published by the peer-reviewed journal, Geology which also published challenges to his conclusions by Ichnologist Lockley and fellow scientist David Loope."
  1. Inaccurate -- it was the laboratory footprints that were salamander, not (necessarily) the Grand Canyon ones.
  2. Under-represents the level of challenge to the conclusions -- which appear to have garnered no acceptance whatsoever.

[Remainder moved below] Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

• But lots and lots of tags for unsourced & poorly-sourced content, and very very little on-topic reliable third-party content. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 02:16, 11 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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(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? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• If you want the article deleted, just let me do my miserable work and it will get deleted. Your interest in improving this article is in conflict with you wanting it deleted. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 05:20, 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." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(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). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• See my comments just above this section. Note that they were posted after your 4:48 post just here. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 06:01, 11 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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(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?

• "Even the published responses to Brand's work acknowledge the adequacy of Brand's observations." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• 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?

• The responses published in Geology (specific criticisms of Brand's work glossed over to cherry-pick the few words of praise) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• 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)

• Austin/Elders (for whom Brand was only a very peripheral aspect of their dispute) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• WP:Synthesis of Ecklund to make it appear that a significant minority share Brand's views.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(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)

• What I "noticed" was your complete failure to ever engage my point that this is WP:Synthesis (which is in fact the very first point I made about this issue -- and a point that I have made repeatedly thereafter). This amounts to WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• We have talked over Ecklund before. We don't agree. I think she is reporting the very thing that Brand is doing, i.e. intentionally letting his religious view influence his question posing. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

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. According to sociologist Elaine Ecklund,

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)  !-- no indication that Ecklund is describing this less-than-20% as subscribing to Brand's SPECIFIC views --

— 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? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(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.

• And "you are prone" to quite maddening WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT of the issue that this is impermissible WP:Synthesis! I therefore don't give a rat's arse if I offended your feelings by using perfectly-WP:SPADE adjectives over the severity of the violation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

DonaldRichardSands why have you repeatedly dodged the issue that your use of Ecklund is 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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 19:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• They both say the same thing. We don't agree. Call in a mediator. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 20:32, 18 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).

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(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! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(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? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(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'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(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)

• Hi Paul. Thanks for these secondary sources and your review of them. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 14:20, 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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 11:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• On the contrary. With its 10 million plus members worldwide, how the Adventist church describes Brand is important to the relevant section of the article. I is part of his notability. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 11:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Look over this Wikipedia entry Arthur Patrick I think we can demonstrate that among Adventist scholars, Patrick is highly regarded. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 11:21, 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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(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.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 11:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• I've just discovered that Arthur Patrick is listed in the 'Acknowledgements' page of the book -- making him blatantly affiliated. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 12:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• I suppose 'blatantly affiliated' is a bit better than saying it is "rendering the whole thing even more incestuous" as you did on the Reliable Sources discussion. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 14:44, 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

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 12:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Ian Thompson does have a way with words. I did appreciate his assessments over at WP:RSN. I am putting them here for our reference: 444961160 and 444962294 DonaldRichardSands (talk) 15:00, 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:

|| Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner.

|| 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)

Pacific Press

@Hrafn:

You reverted this:

In 2005, Don S. McMahon, an Australian medical specialist, and Leonard Brand co-authored the book, The prophet and her critics. It was published the Pacific Press Publishing Association, a prominent church publisher of Adventist books.

To this:

In 2005, Don S. McMahon, an Australian medical specialist, and Leondard Brand co-authored the book, The prophet and her critics.

Please leave it as it is above. Yes, a hyperlink in the external links or whatever could satisfy normally, but the point of this section is to show significance within the Adventist church. I am open to a neutral third party, a helper, coming in and refereeing our dispute. Tag it if you want. But it is a dispute. Maybe use a dispute tag if there is such a thing. Cheers. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

@AdventistFanBoi DonaldRichardSands: please stop larding up this already very badly written and unbalanced article with still more trivia (in this case bibliographical trivia that belongs in the foiotnotes if it belongs anywhere). The "point" of this section is that DonaldRichardSands wishes to manufacture the impression of "significance within the Adventist church" via POV-pushing WP:Synthesis and EXAGGERATION of very minor mentions. Your WP:COI is quite blatantly interfering with your ability to write a neutral article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Time will tell. First let's allow some time for the input of more sourced material. I will assume that your demeaning talk is all in good fun. You do have quite the sense of humor. I enjoyed getting trout slapped a few days ago as well. I will assume that you have good faith toward this article. We have worked together amazingly well. I rely on you to help me correct my tendency to do POV editing. It comes so naturally to me that I don't even know I am doing it. Don't give up. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 06:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Help request for intext mentioning of publisher's prominence

The Leonard R. Brand article is experiencing an intensive editing time. Two editors are working on the page. One finds the material (that's me); the other provides critical support (that's Hrafn). We have established a section entitled Leonard R. Brand#Relationship to the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The purpose of the section is to demonstrate Brand's influence within his own church. The third section is The prophet and her critics. The purpose of this section is to show that Brand's book of that title has made a significant impact on Adventists. The sentence in dispute is this:

It was published by the Pacific Press Publishing Association, a prominent church publisher of Adventist books.

Hrafn, who also nominated this article for deletion, wants "a prominent church publisher of Adventist books" removed. He contends that a hyperlink on the name of the press is enough. Yet, he contends that this whole section does not demonstrate Brand's importance within the church. The fact that his book was published by one of the two most prominent publishers in the denomination helps to show prominence within the church. This section is a work in progress, as the whole article is. It has improved in length, citations and balance of the issues since it was nominated for deletion August 4.

Revert History: Hrafn reverted it once. I reverted it back.

My questions are:

1. Now that you know my reasons for using the disputed phrase, does it violate wikipedia policy for us to keep the wording included?

2. Is this just a matter of our personal opinions or is there a larger issue to be considered?

Signed: DonaldRichardSands (talk) 22:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment by non-helper 1. No. 2. Yes/No. Rationale: As far as I can tell the objection is that it is trivia. WP:HTRIVIA seems to apply, but I think WP:RELE more relevant. It says: "relevance is decided by the editors of the article." IMO it is very important to indicate that the publisher is a church publisher. Less important to note that it is "prominent," that said, I lean toward inclusion. Thus my !vote is to Keep Donald's version. For what happens next see WP:CON.– Lionel ^(talk) 12:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Given that DRS is quite explicitly attempting to use the claim that it was published by "a prominent church publisher of Adventist books" as part of an attempt to establish a prominent "relationship" with the church, a form of WP:Synthesis, I would suggest that the answer to #1 is yes, it does violate Wikipedia policy, and would suggest that this synthesis effect would more than outweigh any (fairly negligible) non-synthetic informational value. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 12:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

In response to a request from an uninvolved editor, I would respectfully state that the sentence "It was published by the Pacific Press Publishing Association, a prominent church publisher of Adventist books," violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. How one person defines prominence is not transferable to another, when the criteria used is unmeasurable and subjective. Prominence is a statement of defined opinion. Think of it like this, notability throughout the world means different things to different people, based on cultural and familial influences. On Wikipedia, notability is defined to set a standard according to established criteria and assists in minimizing and settling disputes. When we edit articles, we don't have set criteria to define "prominence". It remains subjective from one individual to the next. I would recommend that the sentence be edited to simply state, "It was published by the Pacific Press Publishing Association." Any further information desired by the reader can be found at the publisher's article.—Cind.amuse (Cindy) 23:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks Cindamuse DonaldRichardSands (talk) 00:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Tags

The article is full of tags. Please indicate why a specific tag is justified. If a specific tag is being discussed above indicate where. Per policy tags without discussion will be removed. – Lionel ^(talk) 22:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Help for Tags question

In the Leonard R. Brand article there are quite a few tags. Some of the tags have been discussed without resolution. What is usually done with an unresolved issue? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Tag Removal Discussion

Some tags have been removed with reasons given. This section is for the discussion of those actions. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 00:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Tags in Research section

A certain editor has placed the wrong tag on sources based on a faulty interpretation of policy. The "non primary source needed" is just plain wrong. According to WP:PSTS:

Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but if it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences.

What does this mean? Well let's take a look at our situation. If Brand is the mil. historian, and WWII is California Chipmunks then the correct application of the policy is:

A journal by Brand about chipmunks might be a secondary source about chipmunks...

Thus Brand's research is not a primary source. Questions? I didn't think so. I'll remove the erroneous tags from the Research section. Btw I put this page on my watchlist. I'll be around on a regular basis to help explain how to apply our policies. – Lionel ^(talk) 11:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

"A certain editor" suggests that Lionelt is nit-picking. But to keep him happy, I've replaced these tags with {{primary sources}}, with the BLP parameter set -- which explicitly covers affiliated sources -- which is clearly applicable. Storm in a tea-cup. And an unnecessary distraction from the fact that much of this article is (inappropriately) cited to Brand, Brand, Brand ... & Brand. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 11:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

And thinking about it, given that these articles are generally being cited solely for their own existence (i.e. the fact that Brand published on these topics), yes they are primary sources, as well as affiliated sources, in this context. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 13:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• We need to focus on this issue, (see RfC section).

• Can a subject's research published in a notable, peer-reviewed journal be cited? What are the limitations? Parameters? belated DonaldRichardSands (talk) 00:05, 19 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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(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

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.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 08:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Three publications by Brand himself and an article that only gives Brand a bare citation -- more trivia. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 08:23, 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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(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? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(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}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

• see my comment below. In a biography little things can be very interesting, depending on your interests. I found the information of interest. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

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). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(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? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(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)

DonaldRichardSands Comments on the RfC

As DRS has seen fit to add five sub-sections to the RfC, making it rather difficult for newcomers to respond to the original question, I'm taking the liberty of moving it into a top-level section of its own. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 13:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

An editor's summary of the issues

I have subsectioned this to help focus. Noleander, feel free to revert this subsection, if you wish. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Noleander: There seem to be several concerns. Hrafn's initial request said:

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?

Original concerns:

1. Only the Coconino subtopic is properly sourced.
2. The other animal studies do not warrant their own sections.
3. Small (trivial) biographical information should not be mentioned.

An editor's response

1. True. I hope to remedy the chipmunk section soon. I find new third party sources hourly. As an amateur scientist, I find Brand's research interesting. Let's shape the article. Let's not remove sections or even sentences (without 100% consensus) for at least two weeks. Stay with us, be tough, relentless, but let's show what is possible. Thanks.DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
2. We have addressed that in #1. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
3. A biography includes interesting little things, along with the big. Many yet untapped sources provide the 'bricks' helpful in building Brand's biography. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
4. New issue: Brand's denomination is international. Thousands of archives are available for searching information about Brand. Are the many and varied archived journals of an international organization reliable secondary sources if the subject is a member of that organization? eg. the Graham Maxwell article. The article is largely sourced to SDA secondary sources. Cheers DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

No DonaldRichardSands, this is not a "new issue", it is the same old problem -- your uncontrollable reflex to lard this article up with still more affiliated, primary (or more frequently both) sourced information. In formal terms, what is wrong with this strategy is that such archives will (i) generally be unpublished, and so not meet WP:Verifiability, (ii) generally WP:PRIMARY sources, so any interpretation will be WP:Synthesis (iii) non-prominent, so substantial use of them will be WP:UNDUE, & (iv) partisan, so substantial use of them will be WP:POV. The result of your attempting to disinter such information will simply be a repeat of the lengthy argument in the sections above and then a repeat of this RfC. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I would further point out that the {{fansite}} & {{unencyclopedic}} tags on the Graham Maxwell article demonstrate that it's a really bad example. And guess what? DonaldRichardSands is one of its main authors. WP:Competence is required -- NOT excessive-fanboy-overenthusiastic-WP:COI. So kindly curb your enthusiasm and learn a little encyclopaedic restraint and distance. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The Use of Adventist Archives

(i) Are they generally unpublished?

Everyone can access Adventist Archives HERE. Brand's $50 award is referenced as:

"Two Biology Students Awarded Scholarships" (PDF). Pacific Union Recorder. 63 (36). Angwin, CA: Pacific Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists: 8. March 30, 1964. Retrieved August 6, 2011.

(ii) Are they generally WP:PRIMARY sources?

This announcement of Brand's scholarship is a secondary source. Brand did not write it. Most of the sources I use are secondary.

(iii) non-prominent, WP:UNDUE?

Yes, the source is non-prominent but it only supports one sentence in the article. In a biography, that is not WP:UNDUE

(iv) partisan, WP:POV?

It is a church publication. Church publications report news. Two students win an award. Its not a debate with POV.

DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

DonaldRichardSands: WP:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Nobody is supporting your endless quest to include this utterly and irrelevantly trivial $50 book award in this article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 14:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Hrafn, this has not been resolved. This RfC section is to help us resolve it. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 12:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

My above example in the quotation box illustrates the issue: is an affiliated church paper a reliable source for biographic facts. Can you explain why such a report is not a reliable source? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 12:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

1. The problem with floggers-of-dead-horses is that nothing is ever "resolved" with them.
2. Let me give my own 'quotation':

In a report of mind-numbingly trivial banality, an extremely obscure Adventist newsletter reported the inconsequential fact, unreported, unnoticed, and uncared about outside the incestuous Adventist community, that Leonard Brand had once won a very small book award established by an equally obscure Adventist. In other news, Leonard's mother reported that he was a good boy who always tidied his room. DonaldRichardSands had to be taken to hospital, being overcome by the shear inconsequential humanity of it all. Well-wishers are invited to send him template:fancruft tags by way of get-well messages.

— Leonard R. Brand article from a Bizzaro universe

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 13:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I have reported this abusive statement of yours to ANI. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 19

57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Can a WP biographical article contain minor information?

Hrafn has included in his RfC the supposedly trivial news that Brand received a $50.00 book scholarship while a senior in college. Here is the source:

"Two Biology Students Awarded Scholarships" (PDF). Pacific Union Recorder. 63 (36). Angwin, CA: Pacific Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists: 8. March 30, 1964. Retrieved August 6, 2011.

The Brand article is a biography of a notable living person, interesting and unusual, who happens to be a scientist.

Question: Can minor details be included in a WP article?

Is one's report that is published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal a primary source?

• Can we find a WP policy that can guide us on this?

• Can we find editor opinions on this and examine their thinking?

If it is a primary source, is it unacceptable in a biography to describe the scientist's work?

• Can we find a WP policy that can guide us on this?

• Can we find editor opinions on this and examine their thinking?

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

• Brand, L. R.; Ryckman, R. E. (August 1968). "Laboratory Life Histories of Peromyscus eremicus and Peromyscus interparietalis". Journal of Mammalogy. 49 (3). American Society of Mammalogists: 495–501. JSTOR 1378208.
• Brand, L. R.; Ryckman, R. E. (August 1969). "Biosystematics of Peromyscus eremicus, P. guardia, and P. interparietalis". Journal of Mammalogy. 50 (3). American Society of Mammalogists: 501–513. JSTOR 1378777.

Fossil footprints

• Brand, L. R. and T. Tang. (1991). "Fossil vertebrate footprints in the Coconino Sandstone (Permian) of northern Arizona: evidence for underwater origin." Geology, 19:1201-1204.
• Brand, L. R., and J. Kramer. (1996). "Underprints of vertebrate and invertebrate trackways in the Permian Coconino Sandstone in Arizona." Ichnos, 4:225-230.
• Brand, L. R. (1996a). "Variations in salamander trackways resulting from substrate differences." Journal of Paleontology, 70:1004-1010.

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

• Brand, Leonard; Gibson, L. James (1993). "An Interventionist Theory of Natural Selection and Biological Change within Limits". Origins. 20 (2). Loma Linda, CA: The Geoscience Research Institute: 60–82. Retrieved August 10, 2011.
• Brand, L. R. (1996b). "The Paradigm of Naturalism, Compared with a Viable Alternative: A Scientific Philosophy for the Study of Origins." Origins., 23(1):6-34.
• Brand, L. R. (1997). Faith, Reason, and Earth History: A Paradigm of Earth and Biological Origins by Intelligent Design. Andrews Univ. Press, 1997. ISBN 1-883925-15-0.
• Brand, L. R. (2006). "A Biblical Perspective on the Philosophy of Science." Origins 59:6-42

Brand, Brand, ... & Brand in the 'Scientific research' section

As far as I can see the 'Scientific research' section before the 'Fossil tracks' subsection has 10 citations -- 8 of which are to Brand -- it therefore "relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 15:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I would note that the RfC has sugggested that this be slimmed down to a single paragraph. I would suggest something along the lines of:

In the late 1960s Brand studied deer mice with Raymond Ryckman.^{(Veal & Caire)} He has also studied California chipmunk behaviour and vocalisations,^{(University of Michigan)} fossil whale preservation^{(Brand articles)} and the taphonomy of freshwater turtles.^{(Brand article)}

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I interpreted the RfC as suggesting that the previously existing sections (on chipmunks, etc) could be individually slimmed down to single paragraphs, and I have gone ahead and done so. I don't think there is any merit to further slimming those to one total paragraph, since it does not significantly affect the length of the article but does adversely decrease the meaningfulness of it to the casual reader (your proposal is basically just listing overarching fields rather than summarising what was actually done by Brand). I also don't agree that the RfC should be interpreted as suggesting those paragraphs ought be condensed further, notwithstanding your method of rewriting the original question after the comments are already made.

There's no problem with using reliably published primary sources, to provide uncontested additional detail, especially when corroborated by secondary references. It is misleading to call that "relying" on primary sources. I've removed the bibliography section to avoid the duplication, and would rather leave the inline references in than to create cause for bringing the bibliography back, since the current version is much better reading. Cesiumfrog (talk) 23:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I would say the current "California Chipmunks", "Cactus Mice, "Whales", and "Turtles" sections can be trimmed down to a single paragraph.

Note "a single paragraph" singular, not "single paragraphs" (plural) which would denote a paragraph for each animal. I would also suggest that a bibliography (as long as not excessively detailed) is preferable to excessive primary-sourced content. Primary sources should be like grouting -- used sparingly to hold things together and patch over gaps, not used to pave the whole path. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Is one's report that is published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal a primary source?

(This is just for highlighting. Let's discuss it above in the RfC section.)

Can we find a WP policy that can guide us on this?

Can we find editor opinions on this and examine their thinking?

• The policy in question is WP:PSTS, which states "Primary sources are very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on."
• I really don't see how you can get closer to the fact that Brand researched these topics than his published results of the research into them. The "event" that the article is reporting is his research and the "primary source" is the publication of his research.

And if you didn't want it discussed here, then why the hell did you put it here? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 13:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

If it is a primary source, is it unacceptable in a biography to describe the scientist's work?

(This is just for highlighting. Let's discuss it above in the RfC section.)

Can we find a WP policy that can guide us on this?

Can we find editor opinions on this and examine their thinking?

Notability

"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources... If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability" WP:BASIC

Substantial sources

1. Lockley (2000)

Not substantial sources

1. Numbers (2006)
2. Touney
3. Young & Stearley
4. McIver

Discussion

I have added the above lists so we can track progress on notability. I would like for everyone to understand that as of now if the article goes to AfD it will be deleted. The only way to prevent this is to find secondary sources. Anything else is a waste of effort. 1 substantial source and 4 non-substantial sources are not going to cut it. – Lionel ^(talk) 01:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)