Talk:Leonard R. Brand/Archive 1

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. HrafnTalkStalk(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. HrafnTalkStalk(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. HrafnTalkStalk(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)

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 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. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:37, 6 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. HrafnTalkStalk(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). HrafnTalkStalk(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". HrafnTalkStalk(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. HrafnTalkStalk(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". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Still more lousy writing
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! HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Still still more lousy writing
Given that the article makes no further mention of taphonomy, why should the reader care? HrafnTalkStalk(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)

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.) HrafnTalkStalk(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. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

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


 * ...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).

"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."
 * Stating that:


 * ...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. HrafnTalkStalk(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). HrafnTalkStalk(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. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(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'). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(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. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(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. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(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

 * 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.
 * 1) 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!
 * 2) 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.
 * 3) 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. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:40, 7 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. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(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. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:41, 7 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. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(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). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(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". <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(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. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(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". <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

As it turns out, Alston shouldn't be here at all -- the book's self-published. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Still more lousy writing
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! <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Still still more lousy writing
Given that the article makes no further mention of taphonomy, why should the reader care? <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(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)

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.) <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(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. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

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


 * ...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).

"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."
 * Stating that:


 * ...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. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(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). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(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. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(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'). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(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. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(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. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(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

 * 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.
 * 1) 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!
 * 2) 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.
 * 3) 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. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(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: <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) The lead states: "He specializes in taphonomy, ichnology, vertebrate paleontology, mammalogy, and philosophy of science."[not verified in body]
 * 2) *The tag is for the whole list, not just "philosophy of science"
 * 3) *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.
 * 4) 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.
 * 5) The rest of your claims appear to be WP:OR. Please cite WP:SECONDARY sources for your claims.


 * 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. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(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." 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. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(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." <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(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! <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(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. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(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. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(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. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(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)

<span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:59, 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.
 * 2) *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)
 * 3) **Origins and Design purports to be science, but is not -- hence pseudoscience. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) 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.
 * 5) *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)
 * 6) **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. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) ***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)
 * 8) *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)
 * 9) **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. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) ***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.
 * 11) ****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. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) *****The WP:POT essay is quite interesting. I find this quote especially of interest:
 * 13) ******"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."
 * 14) *****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)
 * 15) ***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.
 * 16) ***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)
 * 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.
 * 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. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(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. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

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! <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(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. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(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. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(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. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(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. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(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 <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(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 . <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(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. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(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. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(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. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(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
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. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(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. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

<span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No citation is given for it being "one of the first books" on any particular topic.
 * 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). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

More dubious claims in the lead
[Remainder moved below] <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "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."
 * Inaccurate -- it was the laboratory footprints that were salamander, not (necessarily) the Grand Canyon ones.
 * Under-represents the level of challenge to the conclusions -- which appear to have garnered no acceptance whatsoever.