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)
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 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.
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)
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)
"Leonard Brand has been" WP:WEASELLED by DonaldRichardSands with an appalling misuse of the passive voice to make it appear that a very brief mention of a Kurt Wise by another book was some form of monumental achievement. Hrafn has been totally disgusted by this abuse of the English language and and this ludicrously over-strtched WP:UNDUE. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 00:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
No Alston does not 'commend' Brand for "admitting that the scriptures influence his intelligent design orientation and the developing of his scientific hypotheses" -- he neither makes explicit approval of disapproval -- he simply notes the fact -- nor does he use the word "openly", nor does he talk about Brand's "Contribution" to the debate. This is all exaggerated bullshit. It is also in violation of WP:YESPOV's prohibition to "Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion". Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Now that you admitted that nobody is 'commending' Brand, why are we bothering mentioning Alston by name? He isn't a well-known name and the claim is in no way controversial so we should "avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion" by simply stating this as a fact, rather than as something Alston "noted". Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
As it turns out, Alston shouldn't be here at all -- the book's self-published. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 07:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Brand is recognized for bringing a civil approach to the Creation-Evolution debate and for admitting his use of the Bible in helping him develop his research hypotheses.
WP:PEACOCK & WP:WEASEL, passive-voiced, duplicative, unattributed, unverifiable editorialising BULLSHIT! DonaldRichardSands would you please cease and desist intruding your own opinions into the article! Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 07:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Taphonomy is the study of the environmental conditions affecting the fossilization of animal or plant remains.
Given that the article makes no further mention of taphonomy, why should the reader care? Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 07:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
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.
(Also, can we get agreement on eliminating Alston, per above. It is a WP:SPS, therefore per WP:SELFPUB can only be used about Alston himself & his activities.) Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 07:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
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.
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.
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.
Leonard Brand is the chair of Loma Linda University's department of Earth and Biological Sciences.
If DonaldRichardSands wants to whine about my "hostility", I am hostile because I am getting really really tired of really really bad writing being thrust upon me, when I really really want to revert this appalling crap, but WP:3RR won't let me. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 07:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
I would note that neither Davis & Stearley nor Giberson & Yerxa place Brand in context of 'evolution' or the 'debate'. The former place him in the context of Flood geology, and the latter of " scientific creationism" (aka 'creation science'). Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 08:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
(I would also rather doubt if many scientists consider what creationists add to the "debate" to be a "contribution" -- I suspect they'd be more likely to term it as 'exacerbation' or similar. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 08:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC) )
DRS: you say that you don't think you're making the article worse, but consider:
I am asking you to think before your write:
These are very basic issues for creating an article that is not a 'dog's breakfast' style mess. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 04:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I would point out that it is axiomatic that being qualified to write an encyclopaedia article involves knowing how to write an encyclopaedia article. Again, WP:Competence is required. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 05:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
"Leonard Brand has been" WP:WEASELLED by DonaldRichardSands with an appalling misuse of the passive voice to make it appear that a very brief mention of a Kurt Wise by another book was some form of monumental achievement. Hrafn has been totally disgusted by this abuse of the English language and and this ludicrously over-strtched WP:UNDUE. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 00:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
No Alston does not 'commend' Brand for "admitting that the scriptures influence his intelligent design orientation and the developing of his scientific hypotheses" -- he neither makes explicit approval of disapproval -- he simply notes the fact -- nor does he use the word "openly", nor does he talk about Brand's "Contribution" to the debate. This is all exaggerated bullshit. It is also in violation of WP:YESPOV's prohibition to "Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion". Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Now that you admitted that nobody is 'commending' Brand, why are we bothering mentioning Alston by name? He isn't a well-known name and the claim is in no way controversial so we should "avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion" by simply stating this as a fact, rather than as something Alston "noted". Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
As it turns out, Alston shouldn't be here at all -- the book's self-published. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 07:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Brand is recognized for bringing a civil approach to the Creation-Evolution debate and for admitting his use of the Bible in helping him develop his research hypotheses.
WP:PEACOCK & WP:WEASEL, passive-voiced, duplicative, unattributed, unverifiable editorialising BULLSHIT! DonaldRichardSands would you please cease and desist intruding your own opinions into the article! Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 07:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Taphonomy is the study of the environmental conditions affecting the fossilization of animal or plant remains.
Given that the article makes no further mention of taphonomy, why should the reader care? Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 07:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
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.
(Also, can we get agreement on eliminating Alston, per above. It is a WP:SPS, therefore per WP:SELFPUB can only be used about Alston himself & his activities.) Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 07:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
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.
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.
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.
Leonard Brand is the chair of Loma Linda University's department of Earth and Biological Sciences.
If DonaldRichardSands wants to whine about my "hostility", I am hostile because I am getting really really tired of really really bad writing being thrust upon me, when I really really want to revert this appalling crap, but WP:3RR won't let me. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 07:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
I would note that neither Davis & Stearley nor Giberson & Yerxa place Brand in context of 'evolution' or the 'debate'. The former place him in the context of Flood geology, and the latter of " scientific creationism" (aka 'creation science'). Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 08:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
(I would also rather doubt if many scientists consider what creationists add to the "debate" to be a "contribution" -- I suspect they'd be more likely to term it as 'exacerbation' or similar. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 08:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC) )
DRS: you say that you don't think you're making the article worse, but consider:
I am asking you to think before your write:
These are very basic issues for creating an article that is not a 'dog's breakfast' style mess. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 04:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I would point out that it is axiomatic that being qualified to write an encyclopaedia article involves knowing how to write an encyclopaedia article. Again, WP:Competence is required. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 05:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
The lead states: He specializes in ... (the) philosophy of science.[not verified in body]
No:
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 05:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
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:
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:
Why is this work noteworthy? I'm finding it difficult to find a reliable third-party source that does more than give a bare citation of it. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Third party sourcing? No? Not interested! Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
The tag unreliable source? 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)
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 02:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or lacking meaningful editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below. They are unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties.
ID advocates in general (which covers ARN), and Paul Nelson (O&D's editor) in particular have "a poor reputation for checking the facts". They are "widely acknowledged as extremist". It is not a reliable source. If you want to claim otherwise, then TAKE IT TO WP:RSN! Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 08:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
http://www.rareresource.com/paleontologists/Leonard-R-Brand.html falls under WP:CIRCULAR so is patently unreliable. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 01:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Were Lockley's main points really that "Brand and Tang had made a helpful contribution to the field" & that "Brand and Tang are to be congratulated for a thorough experimental study, which presents more Coconino track data than have appeared at any time since the inaugural studies of Gilmore."? That seems highly unlikely. DonaldRichardSands: you have a very bad habit of cherry-picking praise out of generally critical material. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 02:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I think we're getting back into the issue of importance (in some general sense) versus notability (in the specific Wikipedia sense). Yes, creationists like Brand & Kurt Wise are far more substantive than more colorful\ rivals such as Kent Hovind or Ray Comfort. However, this lack of colour means that they tend not to be written about so much in mainstream sources. And their lack of grenade-tossing fire means that they get seen as less of a threat by anti-creationists, who likewise will tend to write less about them than about more incendiary culture-warriors. That doesn't mean that they're worth less -- far from it, but it does mean that there's far less to base an article on -- which leads to AfD nominations. The easiest way to get yourself an article on Wikipedia (particularly during your own life time) is to screw up royally (especially criminally -- but even simply making a fool of yourself will often do the trick). Brand hasn't done so to date -- so is finding it a bit of a struggle getting/staying in the door. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 05:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
...or as a specialist in Ichnology, when our main source on the issue, Lockley, clearly thinks otherwise. Lockley repeatedly refers to Brand as a biologist, and makes a point of saying "Though Brand is a biologist and can be excused for not fully understanding the geological implications of the hypothesis". Lockley clearly regards Brand as a Biologist who has dabbled a bit outside his area of expertise, rather than as a true specialist in the geological field of Ichnology. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 02:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
How does Brand's university department relate to the Geoscience Research Institute, also at Loma Linda University? (I rewrote the article on it a few years back.) It struck me as odd that the university lumped both Biology and Geology (two fields that only have a fairly thin overlap in Palaeontology) into the same department -- the more so when I now realise they have a whole institute on one of those branches on the same campus. But, as I can't see Brand listed on the GRI's research staff, I'm forced to conclude that they're largely independent of each other. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Toumey, Christopher P. (1994). God's own scientists: creationists in a secular world. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. p. 289. ISBN 0-8135-2043-6.
Note at Google Books says:
For more than five years, Christopher P. Toumey talked with contemporary creationists, joined in their Bible study and prayer groups, and interviewed their leaders in order to understand their heartfelt opposition to the idea of evolution. The modern creationist movement is, Toumey argues, much more than a narrow doctrine extrapolated from a handful of biblical verses; rather, it represents a broad cultural discontent with the moral disintegration of modern America--and a remarkable faith in science itself.
In chapter seven, Other Creationist Stances, Toumey profiles the Geoscience Research Institute. In doing so, he refers to Brand. He does not list Brand as one of the GRI staff interviewed. He quotes him as an authority for the Adventist Creationist stance.
Note this quote
DonaldRichardSands ( talk) 03:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Toumey's book from pages 131-141 reports on GRI. He quite accurately explains the Adventist creationist stance and describes SDA history of Creationist views effectively. His historical section seems indebted mainly to Dr. Ron Numbers book on creation and provides many intext citations from Numbers. (IMO, Numbers has developed into an objective scholar and author. His recent book on creationists does much better in maintianing a neutral, scholarly stance than do his earlier writings.)
Anthropologist Toumey interviewed the GRI staff in 1983. He seems to have listened carefully and reports in a neutral manner. I am impressed with Toumey's careful report on what the staff shared with him. He lists the staff. Brand is not in the list. Later he mentions GRI and then says, "they said..." and then quotes Brand. Toumey considers Brand part of GRI. Toumey speaks of GRI as one unit. He quotes different of the GRI scientists but his discussion is of the GRI's (united) stance on issues.
More analysis of Toumey's GRI section to come... DonaldRichardSands ( talk) 05:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 14:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
[Remainder moved below] Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
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 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.
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)
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)
"Leonard Brand has been" WP:WEASELLED by DonaldRichardSands with an appalling misuse of the passive voice to make it appear that a very brief mention of a Kurt Wise by another book was some form of monumental achievement. Hrafn has been totally disgusted by this abuse of the English language and and this ludicrously over-strtched WP:UNDUE. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 00:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
No Alston does not 'commend' Brand for "admitting that the scriptures influence his intelligent design orientation and the developing of his scientific hypotheses" -- he neither makes explicit approval of disapproval -- he simply notes the fact -- nor does he use the word "openly", nor does he talk about Brand's "Contribution" to the debate. This is all exaggerated bullshit. It is also in violation of WP:YESPOV's prohibition to "Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion". Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Now that you admitted that nobody is 'commending' Brand, why are we bothering mentioning Alston by name? He isn't a well-known name and the claim is in no way controversial so we should "avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion" by simply stating this as a fact, rather than as something Alston "noted". Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
As it turns out, Alston shouldn't be here at all -- the book's self-published. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 07:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Brand is recognized for bringing a civil approach to the Creation-Evolution debate and for admitting his use of the Bible in helping him develop his research hypotheses.
WP:PEACOCK & WP:WEASEL, passive-voiced, duplicative, unattributed, unverifiable editorialising BULLSHIT! DonaldRichardSands would you please cease and desist intruding your own opinions into the article! Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 07:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Taphonomy is the study of the environmental conditions affecting the fossilization of animal or plant remains.
Given that the article makes no further mention of taphonomy, why should the reader care? Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 07:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
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.
(Also, can we get agreement on eliminating Alston, per above. It is a WP:SPS, therefore per WP:SELFPUB can only be used about Alston himself & his activities.) Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 07:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
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.
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.
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.
Leonard Brand is the chair of Loma Linda University's department of Earth and Biological Sciences.
If DonaldRichardSands wants to whine about my "hostility", I am hostile because I am getting really really tired of really really bad writing being thrust upon me, when I really really want to revert this appalling crap, but WP:3RR won't let me. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 07:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
I would note that neither Davis & Stearley nor Giberson & Yerxa place Brand in context of 'evolution' or the 'debate'. The former place him in the context of Flood geology, and the latter of " scientific creationism" (aka 'creation science'). Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 08:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
(I would also rather doubt if many scientists consider what creationists add to the "debate" to be a "contribution" -- I suspect they'd be more likely to term it as 'exacerbation' or similar. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 08:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC) )
DRS: you say that you don't think you're making the article worse, but consider:
I am asking you to think before your write:
These are very basic issues for creating an article that is not a 'dog's breakfast' style mess. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 04:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I would point out that it is axiomatic that being qualified to write an encyclopaedia article involves knowing how to write an encyclopaedia article. Again, WP:Competence is required. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 05:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
"Leonard Brand has been" WP:WEASELLED by DonaldRichardSands with an appalling misuse of the passive voice to make it appear that a very brief mention of a Kurt Wise by another book was some form of monumental achievement. Hrafn has been totally disgusted by this abuse of the English language and and this ludicrously over-strtched WP:UNDUE. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 00:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
No Alston does not 'commend' Brand for "admitting that the scriptures influence his intelligent design orientation and the developing of his scientific hypotheses" -- he neither makes explicit approval of disapproval -- he simply notes the fact -- nor does he use the word "openly", nor does he talk about Brand's "Contribution" to the debate. This is all exaggerated bullshit. It is also in violation of WP:YESPOV's prohibition to "Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion". Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Now that you admitted that nobody is 'commending' Brand, why are we bothering mentioning Alston by name? He isn't a well-known name and the claim is in no way controversial so we should "avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion" by simply stating this as a fact, rather than as something Alston "noted". Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
As it turns out, Alston shouldn't be here at all -- the book's self-published. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 07:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Brand is recognized for bringing a civil approach to the Creation-Evolution debate and for admitting his use of the Bible in helping him develop his research hypotheses.
WP:PEACOCK & WP:WEASEL, passive-voiced, duplicative, unattributed, unverifiable editorialising BULLSHIT! DonaldRichardSands would you please cease and desist intruding your own opinions into the article! Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 07:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Taphonomy is the study of the environmental conditions affecting the fossilization of animal or plant remains.
Given that the article makes no further mention of taphonomy, why should the reader care? Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 07:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
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.
(Also, can we get agreement on eliminating Alston, per above. It is a WP:SPS, therefore per WP:SELFPUB can only be used about Alston himself & his activities.) Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 07:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
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.
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.
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.
Leonard Brand is the chair of Loma Linda University's department of Earth and Biological Sciences.
If DonaldRichardSands wants to whine about my "hostility", I am hostile because I am getting really really tired of really really bad writing being thrust upon me, when I really really want to revert this appalling crap, but WP:3RR won't let me. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 07:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
I would note that neither Davis & Stearley nor Giberson & Yerxa place Brand in context of 'evolution' or the 'debate'. The former place him in the context of Flood geology, and the latter of " scientific creationism" (aka 'creation science'). Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 08:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
(I would also rather doubt if many scientists consider what creationists add to the "debate" to be a "contribution" -- I suspect they'd be more likely to term it as 'exacerbation' or similar. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 08:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC) )
DRS: you say that you don't think you're making the article worse, but consider:
I am asking you to think before your write:
These are very basic issues for creating an article that is not a 'dog's breakfast' style mess. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 04:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I would point out that it is axiomatic that being qualified to write an encyclopaedia article involves knowing how to write an encyclopaedia article. Again, WP:Competence is required. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 05:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
The lead states: He specializes in ... (the) philosophy of science.[not verified in body]
No:
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 05:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
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:
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:
Why is this work noteworthy? I'm finding it difficult to find a reliable third-party source that does more than give a bare citation of it. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Third party sourcing? No? Not interested! Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
The tag unreliable source? 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)
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 02:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or lacking meaningful editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below. They are unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties.
ID advocates in general (which covers ARN), and Paul Nelson (O&D's editor) in particular have "a poor reputation for checking the facts". They are "widely acknowledged as extremist". It is not a reliable source. If you want to claim otherwise, then TAKE IT TO WP:RSN! Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 08:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
http://www.rareresource.com/paleontologists/Leonard-R-Brand.html falls under WP:CIRCULAR so is patently unreliable. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 01:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Were Lockley's main points really that "Brand and Tang had made a helpful contribution to the field" & that "Brand and Tang are to be congratulated for a thorough experimental study, which presents more Coconino track data than have appeared at any time since the inaugural studies of Gilmore."? That seems highly unlikely. DonaldRichardSands: you have a very bad habit of cherry-picking praise out of generally critical material. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 02:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I think we're getting back into the issue of importance (in some general sense) versus notability (in the specific Wikipedia sense). Yes, creationists like Brand & Kurt Wise are far more substantive than more colorful\ rivals such as Kent Hovind or Ray Comfort. However, this lack of colour means that they tend not to be written about so much in mainstream sources. And their lack of grenade-tossing fire means that they get seen as less of a threat by anti-creationists, who likewise will tend to write less about them than about more incendiary culture-warriors. That doesn't mean that they're worth less -- far from it, but it does mean that there's far less to base an article on -- which leads to AfD nominations. The easiest way to get yourself an article on Wikipedia (particularly during your own life time) is to screw up royally (especially criminally -- but even simply making a fool of yourself will often do the trick). Brand hasn't done so to date -- so is finding it a bit of a struggle getting/staying in the door. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 05:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
...or as a specialist in Ichnology, when our main source on the issue, Lockley, clearly thinks otherwise. Lockley repeatedly refers to Brand as a biologist, and makes a point of saying "Though Brand is a biologist and can be excused for not fully understanding the geological implications of the hypothesis". Lockley clearly regards Brand as a Biologist who has dabbled a bit outside his area of expertise, rather than as a true specialist in the geological field of Ichnology. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 02:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
How does Brand's university department relate to the Geoscience Research Institute, also at Loma Linda University? (I rewrote the article on it a few years back.) It struck me as odd that the university lumped both Biology and Geology (two fields that only have a fairly thin overlap in Palaeontology) into the same department -- the more so when I now realise they have a whole institute on one of those branches on the same campus. But, as I can't see Brand listed on the GRI's research staff, I'm forced to conclude that they're largely independent of each other. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Toumey, Christopher P. (1994). God's own scientists: creationists in a secular world. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. p. 289. ISBN 0-8135-2043-6.
Note at Google Books says:
For more than five years, Christopher P. Toumey talked with contemporary creationists, joined in their Bible study and prayer groups, and interviewed their leaders in order to understand their heartfelt opposition to the idea of evolution. The modern creationist movement is, Toumey argues, much more than a narrow doctrine extrapolated from a handful of biblical verses; rather, it represents a broad cultural discontent with the moral disintegration of modern America--and a remarkable faith in science itself.
In chapter seven, Other Creationist Stances, Toumey profiles the Geoscience Research Institute. In doing so, he refers to Brand. He does not list Brand as one of the GRI staff interviewed. He quotes him as an authority for the Adventist Creationist stance.
Note this quote
DonaldRichardSands ( talk) 03:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Toumey's book from pages 131-141 reports on GRI. He quite accurately explains the Adventist creationist stance and describes SDA history of Creationist views effectively. His historical section seems indebted mainly to Dr. Ron Numbers book on creation and provides many intext citations from Numbers. (IMO, Numbers has developed into an objective scholar and author. His recent book on creationists does much better in maintianing a neutral, scholarly stance than do his earlier writings.)
Anthropologist Toumey interviewed the GRI staff in 1983. He seems to have listened carefully and reports in a neutral manner. I am impressed with Toumey's careful report on what the staff shared with him. He lists the staff. Brand is not in the list. Later he mentions GRI and then says, "they said..." and then quotes Brand. Toumey considers Brand part of GRI. Toumey speaks of GRI as one unit. He quotes different of the GRI scientists but his discussion is of the GRI's (united) stance on issues.
More analysis of Toumey's GRI section to come... DonaldRichardSands ( talk) 05:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 14:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
[Remainder moved below] Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)