Talk:Leonard R. Brand/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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)

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)

Hfran you were OK until you included Donald in your satire: completely unacceptable. Donald I think you should drop the $50. You'll never get consensus for it and the effort to try isn't worth it. – Lionel ^(talk) 08:04, 19 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?

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?

Two quotes challenged

He distinguishes between scientific data and presuppositions. He says,

The difference between a creationist and an evolutionist isn't a difference in the scientific data, but a difference in philosophy - a difference in the presuppositions...

Brand teaches that his biblical views help him propose questions for research. On page 8 of his book, Beginnings, he states,

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.

Comments

Hrafn, you deleted these two quotes from the article. I put them back in. Could you explain why you deleted them? Thanks. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 08:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• I explained quite clearly why in my edit summary -- they violate WP:ABOUTSELF. Did you read that policy before reverting? I ask because none of your comments to date indicate that you have. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Both are clearly 'unduly self-serving' claims of an advocate of WP:FRINGE positions (thus a WP:QS), so are impermissible under WP:ABOUTSELF. The former attempts to claim a false equivalence for creationism; the latter seeks to cloak his work in the scientific method, in spite of the fact that he clings to his 'underwater' hypothesis in despite the fact that it has clearly been falsified -- a clear violation of that method. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• It is useful in reporting how Brand describes his approach. Talking about how one thinks is not always self-serving. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 08:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
• There is no attempt to claim an equivalence of creationism with naturalistic science. The first quote simply provides Brand's definition. To understand him, terms are important. Anthropologists talk about understanding people on their terms. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 08:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Not self serving. If the quotes are attributed then there's no problem. – Lionel ^(talk) 08:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Please explain how these quotes are not self-serving. The fact that they are attributed does not obviate the requirement that claims by WP:QSs must not be "unduly self-serving". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• DonaldRichardSands: it is comments like this that make me so very VERY cross with you. Brand's "definition" is indeed blatantly attempting to set up a false equivalence (same data, just different presuppositions) between science and creationism. This is all the more egregious given that we know that they are not in fact NOT working from the same scientific data, as Brand is in fact working on the basis of ignoring the data that falsifies his position on underwater depositation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Look. You haven't convinced Donald. You haven't convinced me. The quotes are attributed. If you think it's fringe then add a rebuttal. I don't mean to be patronizing but that's the way we do things here. – Lionel ^(talk) 09:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF makes no exception for quotes that are attributed. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Unduly self serving? What? Did he walk on water? Turn water into wine? Did I miss something? – Lionel ^(talk) 09:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Turning creationism into the equivalent of science, turning ignoring falsifying evidence into following the scientific method. Unduly self serving. As far as I know, "unduly" does not entail "miraculously". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• It is possible that Brand does do that, treating the two equally rather than fringe. But, this article is not debating creationism and science, it is showing Brand's view of science. If we can find a quote where someone like Numbers criticises Brand for this equivalency, then let's include that information. What if Brand was the most self-serving man on the planet, which he is not, we would still need to show his self-serving thinking. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 09:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. I see you have fully grasped WP:QS and WP:ABOUTSELF. I'm impresed how succinctly you expressed the issues. My work here is done. (Kidding--you're not getting rid of me that easily) – Lionel ^(talk) 09:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

"Please do not revert this without a consensus."

Hrafn, Please do not revert this without a consensus. Thanks. See Talk page. Undid revision 445630813 by Hrafn

Per WP:BURDEN and WP:BRD, the onus is on the adding editor to gain a consensus, where the credibility of the introduced source is challenged. Please:

1. Do not make demands that have no basis in policy.
2. Do not restore legitimately challenged material without a consensus.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• It is a lack of courtesy to take a controversial action without discussing it first on a talk page. I have reverted your massive deletion and started a talk page section here. If you delete it without a consensus, we will have to go to conflict resolution. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 08:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Please read WP:BRD -- this is the way that Wikipedia generally works. And before we take this, and everything else under the sun, to dispute resolution, you first need to articulate why you think that these quotes don't fall afoul of WP:ABOUTSELF. I would also point out that I've already opened up the first step in dispute resolution, by tacking these quotes onto the pre-existing Leonard R. Brand thread on WP:FTN. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It is sourced so WP:BURDEN does not apply. And Hfran BRD applies to you also. If Donald restores the quotes, per BRD you cannot revert him. BRD is not tit-for-tat.– Lionel ^(talk) 08:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

And Donald I think you meant dispute resoluion--which is for behavior. This is a content dispute for which RfC e.g. is appropriate.– Lionel ^(talk) 08:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It is sourced to a WP:QS used in violation of WP:ABOUTSELF, so yes WP:BURDEN does apply

It is his opinion and it is sourced. I do not share your definition of "unduly self serving." At this point may I suggest RfC. – Lionel ^(talk) 09:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Section dealing with Brand's book on Ellen White

In 2005, Don S. McMahon, an Australian medical specialist, and Leonard Brand co-authored the book, The prophet and her critics. It was published by the Pacific Press Publishing Association. The core issue treated in their book is Ellen White's writings on health. In the first four chapters, Brand reports on the earlier research of Ron Numbers on health (1976), Jon Butler on prophetic fulfilment (1979) and Walter Rea on literary relationships (1982). He proposes that these earlier research studies should be examined for their use of logic, interpretation of data, and whether they had good research designs.

Numbers reports,

Brand collaborated with McMahon in bringing McMahon's finding to the attention of American Adventists... the latter book (Brand and McMahon's) devotes a chapter to exposing the perceived weaknesses of Prophetess of Health, especially its failure to entertain "the hypothesis of divine inspiration" (p. 44)

He severely criticises both of McMahon's books:

Despite their pretense to scientific rigor, McMahon's books are riddled with pseudoscientific claims, historical errors, and misleading comparisons.

Comments

This passage remains problematical. Numbers concentrates on McMahon rather than Brand, and Patrick is very closely associated with Brand (being mentioned in the acknowledgements page of the book) and speaking in a non-prominent source, and not of great prominence himself (his article being cited predominately to this self-same source). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC) The preceding was stricken because DonaldRichardSands altered the preceding section to which he was requesting 'Comments' to, AFTER the comment was made. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Hrafn, this is not quite accurate. You did the RfC at 9:12. I announced the changes to the article at 9:18. I changed the text to represent the current reading before I was aware of your RfC. I agree that an RfC should not be altered. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 09:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

(this is my 9:18 input:)

• I have pasted the newest version of the text. Another quote block of Numbers.
• I don't understand the undue weight tagged concern. The sentence in question reads:

He (Brand) proposes that these earlier research studies should be examined for their use of logic, interpretation of data, and whether they had good research designs.

I don't see this as putting undue weight. It is simply reporting Brand's focus. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 09:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Having a section on the book is probably ok, what is there sucks. who is Numbers? And what does the comment made before the publication of McMahon and Brand's book have to do with anything? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Protecting science from pseudoscience

• I think one of the points of tension as we develop the article is that there is a need to defend science from pseudoscience. On our team, Hrafn is especially concerned about this.

• As a team we must guard the article from implying that Brand's views on creation and the flood are debated in the scientific community as competing scientific views, they aren't. The scientific community considers Brand's views as a Young Earth Creationist and flood geologist to be Fringe.

• This makes an article about Brand difficult. He talks and walks like a scientist. In his heart, he views himself as both a scientist and a creationist. He believes that some day, science and the Bible will be understood as fully supporting each other. I suppose the only way to get this message that Brand's flood geology is not mainstream science across in the article is find a secondary source which explains it. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 11:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

DonaldRichardSands (talk) 11:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous archiving

I've seen posts from today and linked from RS/N moved to the archive. Can someone undo that and fix what's causing it? FuFoFuEd (talk) 16:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)  Done I am restoring the archived content and I will warn the user who archived it. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Notability

(We have two notability discussion sections. See the other HERE )

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)

Brand page and Wikipedia:Notability (people)

In my opinion the Leonard R. Brand page cannot pass the PROF test. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The introduction of Wikipedia:Notability (academics) states:

This guideline is independent from the other subject specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH etc.: it is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under one of the other subject specific notability guidelines. Conversely, if an academic is notable under this guideline, his or her possible failure to meet other subject specific notability guidelines is irrelevant. {emphasis added)

I recommend that the Brand page be examined to see if it passes the Wikipedia:Notability (people) test. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments on Brand page and Wikipedia:Notability (people)

(This is essentially a duplication of the Notability section I started below. Less the running tally/list of secondary sources. Suggest we merge the sections.– Lionel ^(talk) 23:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC))

• That is fine with me. I prefer for it to be with the other notability section here, if that is okay. We may need to tweak it to represent the interest in the BIO test rather than the WP:PROF test. I am reading the related policy pages, from start to finish, for the first time. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

This area of the talk page had discussed WP:PROF. The section below is based on WP:BASIC (same as WP:BIO). Anyway the only thing that matters is that we're all on the same page, as it were. RfCs about $50 scholarships and creationism/evolution don't mean anything if the article fails WP:BASIC and is deleted in 2 weeks/a month.– Lionel ^(talk) 00:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• Okay. I have invited User:Hunter Kahn to lend a hand. He is occupied otherwise at the moment, but seems interested. No matter the outcome, I hope we can clarify the issues further. I was quite pleased with the discussion on the RSN. It's all good. :) belated signature DonaldRichardSands (talk) 21:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Questions on quotes

1. Is Brand a WP:QS on matters relating to the difference between science and creationism and the extent to which his methods are scientific?
2. Are the following quotes from Brand "unduly self-serving" (per WP:ABOUTSELF):

The difference between a creationist and an evolutionist isn't a difference in the scientific data, but a difference in philosophy - a difference in the presuppositions...

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.

(Keeping in mind that at least one source has criticised Brand for hanging onto a widely-falsified hypothesis.)

• Follow-up question: does WP:ABOUTSELF contain any explicit or implied exception for self-serving statements that are attributed?

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec) WP:QS does not apply. It states "Questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves." QS only applies if Brand was talking about another topic. In this case he's speaking about himself. Re ABOUTSELF he is stating his own opinion, and it is attributed to him, and the opinion is not "unduly self serving" so there's no problem. – Lionel ^(talk) 09:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• WP:ABOUTSELF's requirement #1 is independent of its requirement #2, therefore your interpretation has no basis in a plain reading of the policy. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• How can one quote a person in order to show how they think if all their thinking is said to be self-serving. This article is about Brand. Information about Brand, even quotes from him, serve the article. We know better how Brand thinks because of the quotes. Wikipedia is served. You judge those statements as self-seving because you disagree with Brand. The article is not a debate about Brand, it should provide balanced coverage of his views. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 09:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• If you think that WP:ABOUTSELF's requirements are unreasonable, then you're welcome to lobby to have them changed. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not that ABOUTSELF is unreasonable....... – Lionel ^(talk) 09:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment; the context of the RFC isa little unclear. The aim of RFC is to gain uninvolved input into a situation - that means writing a comprehensive overview of the matter in dispute (as neutrally as possible) so that people like myself trying to comment don't have to pick apart the dispute so far... :) The current RFC question is a little hard to venture an opinion on - I will look into this and comment further, but I wanted to point that out first. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Requested context:
  1. Brand is a creationist, an adherent of a worldview widely rejected by the scientific community.
  2. The equivalence claim made in the first quote is a variant of a common creationist argument (see for example this, which shows Henry M. Morris making a very similar claim).
  3. Brand remains wedded to the hypothesis of the underwater origins of the Coconino Sandstone (a hypothesis supporting a flood geology view of the Grand Canyon), despite a wealth of evidence (see citations in article) falsifying this claim.

(Sorry for not providing sufficient context -- I was being brief in an attempt not to 'poison the well', by letting my own views intrude.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

4. *More context The Leonard R. Brand article is about a respected research scientist who holds to a Young Earth Creationism worldview as a Seventh-day Adventist academic. The article is chiefly biographical in nature. It is not intended to be a debate on whether creationism and science are equal in matters of science. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 10:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding #2 Brand is stating that creationists and evolutionists are different. It's not equivalence, it's compare & contrast. Item #3 is irrelevant to this issue and should be deleted.– Lionel ^(talk) 10:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• quick observation on quotes generally. the article has way to many of them. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there are many quotes. This article has had many disputes over summaries and wording. Quotes can't be disputed for their wording. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 12:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• Brand is not, or is not necessarily, a RS on the difference between science and creationism since he clearly has a POV on this. He is, however, a RS on his own opinion of the difference. So long as the article is clearly presenting the quotes as his opinion and no more then I cannot see the problem. The article, after all, is about him. SpinningSpark 11:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

If DRS and Lionelt are serious about teamwork...

...then I would strongly suggest that this little trick (which explicitly privileges DRS's 'points' over Hrafn's -- hardly a good way to respond to an accusation of WP:OWNERSHIP), and Lionelt's ongoing WP:BAITing both here and on User talk:Hrafn, are hardly a good way to engender it. I see no way to engage positively in such an environment, so will attempt to hold my (often overly-ascerbic) tongue in an attempt to at least not further exacerbate the situation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• I agree that we need to value everyone's edits, equally. Further, I think we need to agree that your experience is considerable and worthy of respect. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 11:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
• Lionel, quit your poking at Hrafn. Your active participation here is needed, but Hrafn's concern must be attended to. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 11:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't know what Hfran's talking about. – Lionel ^(talk) 21:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm out of here

Considering the escalating amount of heat and ill-will in this article, I've decided that the best thing to do is to impose a self-imposed (and thus purely voluntary) topic-ban on myself. Further participation at this time is just going to have further adverse effect on my blood pressure, mental health and standing in the Wikipedia community. As I'm sure some will be quite willing to point out to me, I am partly to blame for this -- I'm not exactly the most conciliatory of souls -- but I would suggest that others examine their own behaviours. I'll post a notice on a couple of relevant noticeboards and wikiprojects asking for others to take over my role, but will now remove this article from my watchlist and ask regulars on it not to contact me on user talk (to help me avoid letting myself be dragged back in). Goodby and good luck. Hrafn 11:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Hrafn, Best wishes. I am going to miss your knowledgeable counsel. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Take care Simbagraphix (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Notability: WP:BASIC

(We have two notability discussion sections. See the other HERE )

"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. Toumey
3. Young & Stearley
4. McIver

Substantial Source Discussion: Lockley 2

Text in the article reads:

Leonard Brand has published two books on the creation-evolution controversy from a Young Earth Creationist worldview, Faith, Reason and Earth History (1997, 2009) and Beginnings. Along with English, Faith, Reason and Earth History has been published in Spanish and Portuguese. In the year 2000, Ichnos published an eleven page critical book review by geologist Martin Lockley and palaeontologist Stephen Donovan.

Substantial Source Discussion: Mammalian Species entry 469

Kaufman says Mammalian Species is the most comprehensive information available:

And for the most comprehensive information available on a given species, the source is Mammalian Species published by the American Society of Mammalogists. This ongoing project produces a thorough account of current knowledge for one species at a time with 20 or more new accounts published each year, each one ranging from 2-14 pages. More than 700 accounts have been published and eventually every mammal species in the world will be covered...

Nora Bowers, Rick Bowers and Kenn Kaufman (2004). Mammals of North America. Kaufman Focus Guides. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company. ISBN 0-618-15313-6 Accessed August 24, 2011.

Consider this source:

• Review article Clawson, Robin G.; Clawson,, Joseph A.; Best,, Troy L. (June 2, 1994). "Tamias quadrimaculatus" (PDF). Mammalian Species. No. 469. The American Society of Mammalogists: 1–6. Retrieved August 24, 2011.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link);

Comment

• Information from Brand takes up 26 lines of text on the right hand column of page 4. Brand's account of nests and sounds are covered. This coverage seems quite significant. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 19:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion (sectiton established by Lionel)

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)

• The Leonard R. Brand article is not about a notable academic. We have been trying to show that he is a notable academic, but I don't think it can be done. He is just a good scientist, like thousands of others. His article is about an interesting and unusual person, i.e. a regular person bio. The list above only deals with the academic citations. The list does not include the many secondary bio-info sources which when put together depict an interesting and unusual person. The bio guidelines stress that the regular bio person's status at wikipedia is a matter of consensus. If we agree that Brand is interesting and unusual, then he passes the test so long as adequate sourcing is provided. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:BASIC is not the notability guideline for academics. Ok. Point me to the policy where you got "The bio guidelines stress that the regular bio person's status at wikipedia is a matter of consensus." – Lionel ^(talk) 07:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• I misunderstood the section that says the 'policy' was developed by consensus. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if you're aware of this, but this section is the most important discussion on the talk page. A reviewing admin (and Afd could take place in as little as 2 weeks) will evaluate the sources pretty much as I've outlined. Right now we need more sources.– Lionel ^(talk) 21:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Notability (people) and the Brand article

My intention for this subsection is to provide quotes for the key parts of WP:BASIC, DonaldRichardSands (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The Lead

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.

1. Is Brand "worthy of notice?"
2. Is Brand "significant?"
3. Is he "interesting?"
4. Is he "unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded?"

DonaldRichardSands (talk) 22:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Basic Criteria

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

• 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.
• Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.

Comment: As a research scientist, Brand is often cited in another scientist's work. Most such citations do not "discuss the subject in detail." DonaldRichardSands (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Question 1: How many lines, or words, of coverage consititute an acceptable amount of detail? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Question 2: How many simple citations in independent peer-reviewed journals does it take to demonstrate that Brand is a cited authority in his field? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Insufficient sources

If an article fails to cite sufficient sources:

• Look for sources yourself
• Ask the article's editor(s) for advice on where to look for sources.
• Put the {{notability|biographies}} tag on the article to notify other editors.
• If the article is about a specialized field, use the {{expert-subject}} tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online.

We need to discuss how to work as a team.

We are a team. Whether we sense it or not. Those of us who work on the Leonard R. Brand article are a team. Quite often we seem dysfunctional. Here is how I see our team:

1. Since August 4, I have been the editor who adds new sources and citations. I am successful in finding material. Not quite as successful integrating the material flawlessly.
2. Hrafn has served as critic, which he does well. He has not added very much new information to the text. But, the article has taken on shape because of his input.
3. Lionel helps to offer a second opinion on logic. He often counters Hrafn's logic. He also is not afraid to tell me when I am not thinking correctly.
4. Cesium has taken the lead usually with rewording the text,
5. Kenatipo tweaks the citations and does other tasks.

Maybe I am forgetting someone, but this is the Leonard R. Brand team. Others can join us. A team should function as a team. Courtesy, etc. is important. Imagine we are all at a table with a huge common computer screen. Our job is to get along well-enough so we can move forward.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DonaldRichardSands (talk • contribs)

Comments

What a wonderful sentiment. Oh "Mr. Adds New Sources and Citations", you're needed over here. – Lionel ^(talk) 10:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Actually I see my function as getting you to add enough sources to this article so it passes AfD and before Hfran breaks his keyboard over your head, LOL!!!!!! – Lionel ^(talk) 10:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

An alternate set of points

1. Since August 4 DonaldRichardSands has added a large amount of material, much of it poorly written; unreliably, primary and/or affiliatedly sourced; and/or of questionable importance, relevance and/or basis in source.
2. DRS has frequently made demands amounting to WP:OWNERSHIP of the article.
3. DRS has demonstrated little awareness of, and little interest in, the policies relevant to disputes, but has instead escalated virtually every disagreement to a dispute resolution level.
4. Hrafn has in fact added a fair amount to the text, as well as rewriting a considerable amount of poorly written material.
5. Whilst Hrafn may have been over-aggressive in his advocacy (he gets that way when frustrated), he has not been the only one raising the temperature level, with a number of unsubstantiated accusations being made against him.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

@Hfran that was HILARIOUS!! And it isn't diminished by the fact that you're completely serious, LOL!!!! – Lionel ^(talk) 10:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

DRS Responds

Not a bad list. But let's compare the August 4 article to how it looks today. The article has improved considerably. We are obviously heading in the right direction. As we move forward, the best approach is to trust each other's wish to make the article better and to acknowledge the skills each of us bring to the task. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 10:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there are far too many escalations to RFC on this page, almost to the point of disruption. There is little here that editors could not have worked out for themselves with goodwill and reference to Wikipedia policies. SpinningSpark 21:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thought from an outsider

I have seen the RfC and I think the discussion here is part of a much wider argument about how we should represent the views of the subject in a biography.

My opinion is that we should mention them but not expound them or discuss them in detail.

The problem with discussing the views of a person in detail is that it is likely to give undue prominence to fringe views within WP as a whole. If the view of a subject is notable then there should be a page on that subject where both sides of the argument can be explained, together with what reliable secondary/tertiary sources say about them.

To give some made up examples of what I mean, we might say Joe Soap, the famous painter, was known for his opinion that the Moon landings were a hoax, or Fred Bloggs, the famous physicist was well known for supporting Hitler's Persecution of Jews. That is fine, if those views are well sourced, but we should say little more. Discussion of those views, in the proper context, should take place in the article pages. To repeat them in a biography, whether we like it or not, is to provide a degree of support for them. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Martin Hogbin, thanks for your input. I agree that a biography should not give excessive exposure to the subject's FRINGE ideas. A separate article should address the proposed concepts instead. Brand's YEC views are FRINGE science. Are there any article sentences which give over-exposure to his YEC views? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

How about, 'They confirmed the accepted taxonomy of these species, and showed that these species are still able to interbreed.'? That appears to be trying to make scientific point about whether the those species of mouse should be able to interbreed, yet it is without scientific context. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, that's just a summary of what they actually did, as any reasonable person would conclude by reading the abstracts. And it's was mainstream science, not fringe.

It's quite plausible that Brand chose that research topic because of his views (disbelieving evolution). But the research reconfirms the non-fringe view, that distinct species of deer mice had evolved from common ancestors. (The sentence in the article already even emphasises explicitly that their work only confirmed the mainstream view.) If you like you could analyse the relation of this to Brand's current view, that evolution does happen but that it started with a short list of ancestor kinds (rather than a single ancestor), though such editorialising wouldn't belong in the article unless it was done by a reliable secondary source (as in the case of the fossil tracks). I don't think you've identified an example of the problem you describe (of biographies presenting detailed cases for fringe views, beyond just noting what views the topic held). But I think we agree that this article should explain what kind of creationist Brand is, but should not give a detailed exposition of a side of e.g. the argument from complexity (since although Brand has published a book which repeats this poor argument among others in support of his views, the use of the argument is very trivial in context of what is notable about Brand, and disproportionately expounding on that one detail would unbalance the bio, not to mention blowing out the article beyond any pretense of encyclopedic summary.)Cesiumfrog (talk) 02:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

You first paragraph is quite correct, we have a summary of the work Brand did and the results he got. I also agre that adding the scientific context here is the wrong way to go.

I gave this example because I do not feel that strongly about it but I consider giving the results of Brand's work slightingly excessive. I am trying to find some principle that might be applied to biographies in general. It seems that where the results of research by the subject are potentially contentious or difficult to interpret without the correct context we are better off not including them. Might we say, for example, 'His work was concerned with the taxonomy and potential for interbreeding between different species'. Saying, '...these species are still able to interbreed' (my emphasis) seems suggestive of something even though it may not be clear what. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

One of Brand's interest is the role of natural selection from a YEC viewpoint, in particular: speciation. He noticed that two species of mice can still mate with the other species. This is not earth shaking news. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 12:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Brand's YEC thinking while he conducts 'mainstream' science can be compared to people who think the earth if flat. These 'flat earth' people will spend more time, perhaps, investigating physics, geometry, etc. As long as they are doing peer-reviewed science, their methods and questioning can lead to new questions worthy of scientific study. FRINGE advocates can do mainstream science. Mainstream 'round earth' scientists can relax. If the 'flat earth' people submit their findings to the peer-reviewed process, science advances. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 12:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

So would you be happy with my suggestion, 'His work was concerned with the taxonomy and potential for interbreeding between different species.'? As you say, the result is not particularly interesting or notable. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Why are you seeking to censor the conclusions of his work? It has already been vetted by experts. By phrasing the mention of interbreeding such as to deliberately avoid communicating the result, you awkwardly make the article less informative without gaining any benefit.

The research program nor its results are not "potentially contentious". It is a mainstream scientific fact that those species of deer mouse diverged from common ancestors and will gradually become less able to interbreed. Brand's own version of creationism is in complete agreement. (Perhaps someone else advocates a different variant of creationism that contests use of the word "still", for implying speciation exists, but there's no reason here for you to inject an irrelevant fringe bias.) It's not difficult to understand the result. It doesn't necessitate interpretation. Context is already given. I have no idea why you are trying to suggest "something" might be read into those sentences of the article, so with all respect, perhaps it would be more helpful for you instead to focus your criticism onto a part of the article where there actually is a problem you can clearly identify? I think much of the content lower down in the article is deserving of attention. Cesiumfrog (talk) 14:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Why do you want to give the results of Brand's research? Is it notable in some way?

You say, 'It doesn't necessitate interpretation', but without some kind of interpretation it is very uninteresting fact; two species of mouse can interbreed. So what? Who cares?. Why mention it in a biography? Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Previously, each of Brand's research programs had an entire subsection in this article, detailing every research publication. I condensed these down to just a sentence or so each. But I think it is necessary that they do describe (however briefly) what he actually did. If you went further you would just be saying which fields he worked in (taxonomy, taphonomy, ichnology, and zoology) and failing to communicate what Brand did. Why does anyone care? Because if we're going to have an article on Brand at all, then it makes sense to have a couple sentences on each of the half-dozen research programs that comprise his professional career. Doesn't that answer your question? And since it only takes up a few lines of space but is supported by numerous reliable sources, I don't see the objection.Cesiumfrog (talk) 16:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

My objection is that the results of his work are not of biographical interest. If they are significant they should be discussed in the appropriate article, if not they should be ignored. Martin Hogbin (talk)

Biographical Interest: A WP biography should be comprehensive, informative and should help give leads to people studying either the person or his interests. In Brand's case, he began his career studying deer mice (Masters) then the sounds (and nests) of Chipmunks (Ph.D). In these cases, he has compared species. He helped Neufeld's team discount the Paluxy man tracks. He studied underwater salamander tracks. The fossils of whales in Peru. The fossils of turtles in Wyoming. Almost all of these studies found some of their inspiration in Brand's "FRINGE" view of Young Earth Creationism. The story of how a YEC adherent can do valid science as an outgrowth of his FRINGE views is, I believe, interesting to our Wikipedia readership. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we should show his work but why give the results? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Why not? I'm not sure where you're getting your criteria of what should and shouldn't be in a biography. But in scientific research, a person is normally known for their results. (That is why people who discover something important are more famously remembered than the others who worked longer and harder in the same field but without such results, and why it doesn't even matter whether the discovery is by luck.) It's not the effort of studying a question that advances science, it's the answer to the question that does. The result is the work.

Look at your own example: "His work was concerned with the taxonomy and potential for interbreeding between different species". Now compare the same thing without awkwardly avoiding saying the outcome: "Brand confirmed the taxonomy of several deer mice species and showed they can interbreed". Nothing in the first version fails to be communicated by the second. Even though the second conveys vastly more information, it is significantly shorter. It is very unnatural to try to describe somebody's research in a way that prevents the result from being learned. Cesiumfrog (talk) 00:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with M. Hogbin: the details of Brand's scientific papers should only be minimally mentioned in this article. Including too much detail here serves to promote what is, in general, non-mainstream scientific views. Details are better off in other articles on the particular scientific topics. On the other hand, the article is now in much better shape than it was two weeks ago when there were about six separate sections on the various aspects of Brand's research. I don't think much more needs to be deleted ... but certainly no more should be added. --Noleander (talk) 01:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we should not promote fringe views here but neither is it the place discredit them. I am trying to come up with some principles here that help avoid this argument and one such principle could be that we should not give results of research work unless the results are widely regarded as notable in some way. To give results can easily be understood to be supporting one side or the other.

Cesiumfrog, results of research work are meaningless unless we know the background and details. What was the hypothesis the work was based on and did the results verify or disprove that hypothesis. Without that information, readers will be forced to speculate.

Even in a purely factual sense it is hard to attach much meaning to the statement 'showed they can interbreed'. A horse and a donkey can interbreed to produce a mule but the offspring are self-sterile although there is some limited fertility with the parent species. It is not clear what the case is with the mice, are offspring fertile or is there some limited fertility. This is not the place to discuss those details so it is best to leave out a statement that is unclear and may lead to contention because it is interpreted differently by different readers. As a stand-alone statement it is remarkably uninteresting. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Brand's contribution to the body of science

(This is a work in progress, if you would like to discuss these ideas, please do so in the subsection which follows.)

Like the vast majority of scientists Leonard R. Brand has contributed to the ever growing body of science:

The Cactus Mouse and closely related species: speciation, living habits,

The ten varieties of chipmunks in California: He compared their calls and their nesting habits. He has become one of the standards by which other vocalization researchers compare their designs.

The fossil trackways of the coconino sandstone: Brand's conclusions have been disputed by Lockley, et al. His observations of what underwater trackways look like have been cited by ichnologists who study trackways considered to be made underwater. Scientists who contemplate an underwater trackway hypothisis for tracks in various locations cite brands lab studies in their work.

The fossil whales of Peru: Brand's study of the whales in Peru have been cited by quite a few other researchers.

The fossil turtles of Wyoming: Brand decided to study these turtles because they were not being studied by other scientists. His research involves documenting the location of the turtles using geological strata, using the terms of geochronology. This has caused some criticism from his YEC colleagues. To understand how turtles decompose, he has studied the taphonomy of recently killed turtles. (This troubles me personally. He had to euthanize purchased turtles in order to study how they decay.) His interest in the Bridger formation has led to map studies in collaboration with the Wyoming Geological Survey. All of this demonstrates that a YEC advocate can do effective research without offending geological standards and geochronological viewpoints. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussion for: Brand's contribution to the body of science

(Please place any comments below, thanks)

I suggest that we should show the areas where Brand contributed but studiously avoid giving any kind of assessment of the value of his contributions, even by implication. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• I am okay with that. Placing value on a person's work seems subjective. If a secondary source does the placing of value, that would be different. On a related point: Brand's research recording chipmunks calls makes up the body of knowledge the scientific community has collected. His meticulous observations including how many seconds between calls etc. have been cited reasonably often by reviewers. The interesting aspect to Brand is that he is a respected, careful researcher published in peer-reviewed science journals and at the same time he is a respected thought-leader of the Young Earth Creationist movement. From what I can tell, there are only a few YEC advocates who have been published in such journals. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but we must also be careful not to present the two facts, 'Brand is that he is a respected, careful researcher published in peer-reviewed science journals' and ,'he is a respected thought-leader of the Young Earth Creationist movement' in such a way that we are promoting any conclusions that might be drawn from considering these two facts together. You may find it interesting, some may find it evidence that the YEC movement is supported by science, others may conclude that Brand is cleverly scheming to mislead people into thinking that YEC movement is supported by science. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I see your point. Isn't it possible to present the strange mixture that makes Brand unusual and interesting as a simple feature of his biography and leave any grand conclusions out of the text. For example, the current outline profiles his scientific contributions and the next section profiles his involvement in the YEC community. Brand's studies of mice, chipmunks, fossil trackways, whales and turtles have been submitted to peer-review. It is not necessary to write of all his conclusions. The Brand page is a biography of a notable person, i.e interesting and unusual. The notability of Brand depends on the demonstration that his peer-reviewed science and his YEC worldview coexist in his experience. How does he deal with the dissonance? Have secondary sources considered this? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 03:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I think all we need to do is present the two facts in separate sections. Many famous scientists have had minority religious or philosophical views, for example Newton and Michael Faraday. Statements like like 'the strange mixture that makes Brand unusual and interesting' and 'notability of Brand depends on the demonstration that his peer-reviewed science and his YEC worldview coexist in his experience' need to be supported by secondary sources. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Facts in separate sections makes sense to me. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we agree then that complete information can be presented in an encyclopedic manner appropriate for a biography and in a way that does not lead people to draw unwarranted conclusions. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• Yes. Brand is not a leading scientist in his field. Instead he enjoys consistent respect in peer-reviewed journals like thousands of other "regular" scientists. But, as a YEC advocate, he is one of a mere handful of such scientists. If Brand concludes that whales were buried rapidly, it would be merely another scientific conclusion. But, rapid burial is considered important in the YEC community and their Flood Geology. Brand's published research enjoys peer citations in prestigious science journals. So, we have routine science (if there is such a thing) making waves in the YEC community. Flood Geology is important to the YEC folk but is not even FRINGE science in the Scientific community. Brand's rapid burial (scientific) conclusions are routine, often overlooked. His methods and observations are cited quite often. YEC leaders routinely acknowledge the importance of Brand's research to YEC. Too much mention in the science area is perhaps UNDUE weight. Too little mention in the YEC section is perhaps UNDUE weight there. This calls for intentional civility in the discussion and treatment of the Brand article, IMO. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

1981, Creation Workshop, Montana: North America wide attendance

1981 Creation Workshop Bozeman Montana

Creation Workshop

A Creation Workshop for academy science teachers, conducted by the Geoscience Research Institute, was held at Mount Ellis Academy, Bozeman, Montana, July 30 to August 15. Sixty-two participants, representatives of every union conference in North America, were in attendance.

The major objectives of the conference were to acquaint the participants with current and valid research in creationism and to relate science to the Bible.

A full schedule of lectures and discussions included such topics as:

• the evidences for Creation,
• Flood modeling,
• rates of speciation,
• the age of the earth,
• dinosaurs,
• the origin and age of the Grand Canyon, and
• Ellen G. White statements on science and geology.

Four days of field trips gave the participants opportunity to observe

• the petrified forests of Yellowstone,
• the layering of the earth's surface,
• major thrust faulting as seen in Heart Mountain in Wyoming,
• mountain uplift (Beartooth and Bighorn Mountains),
• erosion,
• Yellowstone thermal features, and
• the destructive force of the Hebgen earthquake.

Staff for the workshop were

• Ariel Roth,
• Robert Brown,
• Richard Tkachuck, and
• coordinator Harold Coffin, of the Geoscience Research Institute,
• Leonard Brand and
• Arthur Chadwick, of Loma Linda University's biology department; and
• Robert Olson, of the Ellen G. White Estate.
• F. R. Stephan, of the General Conference Department of Education, and
• Richard Fearing, president of the North Pacific Union Conference, assisted with weekend services.

F. R. STEPHAN

http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH19811015-V158-42__B/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=24

DonaldRichardSands (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

1986, Newbold Hosts Creationists

1986, Newbold Hosts Creationists

Newbold College in England recently hosted what is believed to be the largest conference of creationists ever held in the United Kingdom. More than 100 European delegates, about 30 of whom were non-Adventists, dis- cussed the scientific integrity of creationism and the longstanding debate between creationists and evolutionists.

The speakers included A. E. Wilder-Smith, a British scientist and champion of the creationist cause, who gave two talks on the biochemical basis of life. In one he discussed the improbability of life arising by itself, and in the other he said that the language of the genetic code was a strong argument for Creation. The evolutionists' account of the origin of the code, he said, was like saying that the news stories in a newspaper were written by the paper itself.

Evidence of Flood

Ariel Roth, director of the Geo- science Research Institute at Loma Linda University, presented the sci- entific evidence of a worldwide flood, which he said was an essen- tial pillar of the creationists' case. Roth admitted that scientific evi- dence for such a flood is limited, but he found it encouraging that geolo- gists are becoming more open to the view that there might have been a sudden catastrophic event (or events) in the past. He offered several possible models to explain the geological column in terms of a worldwide catastrophe.

Most of the scientists at the con- ference recognized the problem of opposite interpretations given to the same phenomena. Dr. Leonard Brand, chairman of the Biology Department at Loma Linda Univer- sity, addressed this problem during a talk on scientific method and Creation. He outlined procedures in which science and the Bible could work together, with the Bible help- ing scientists in their research.

In the final presentation, Colin Mitchell, lecturer of physical geog- raphy at Reading University, sum- marized the strengths and weak- nesses of the Creation and evolution positions.

He said that although there are many points in favor of Creation, creationists need to be aware that there is a strong case in favor of evolution. He sent the delegates home with the thought that there is still a need for creationists to build detailed case studies as Darwin did to support the theory of evolution.

http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH19860417-V163-16__B/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=21

DonaldRichardSands (talk) 15:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Moved by Checkwiki

The following "discussion" was deleted from the Wiki markup for this article because it was causing a high-priority error #5 "Comment tag with no correct end":

<!--{{Synthesis|section|date=August 2011}}<!-- We need to examine the text for 
synthesis. If a string of minor facts are true, if they help strengthen the article by
informing the readership better, if they support a topic sentence making an assertion
which needs support, then is it synthesis? signed by User:DonaldRichardSands August 21,
2011. --><!-- Attempting to manufacture the impression of a 'significant' or 'notable'
relationship by stringing together very minor mentions unsigned by User:Hrafn --> <!--
You are right that there many minor mentions. The Yearbook listing of Brand as a member
of its science council is quite minor over a period of at least 25 years. unsigned
editor -->

"A talk page (also known as a discussion page) is a page which editors can use to discuss improvements to an article" (WP:TALKPAGE).
Checkwiki --LukasMatt (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leonard R. Brand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130223062338/http://dialogue.adventist.org/articles/16_2_esperante_e.htm to http://dialogue.adventist.org/articles/16_2_esperante_e.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)