User talk:John J. Bulten/John F. Ashton

Books

Amazon.com turned up the following books also by a "John Ashton":

• Understanding the fourth gospel
• The Quest for Paradise: Visions of Heaven and Eternity in the World's Myths and Religions
• Devil in Britain and America

I'm not sure if they are by John F. Ashton or not. Colin MacLaurin 15:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Problematical sections

The Philosophy section gives greater weight to the generally shorter, less prominent and far less scientifically accepted views of Ashton's proponents over those of his opponents. The Beliefs section cites only Ashton himself and so "represent[s] content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." I am therefore tagging these two sections. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you mean the philosophy section after the first two grafs; but I'm not analyzing in detail or moving the tag down two grafs right now. It is unnatural for an article on a minority view to give majority space to the majority view (classic WP:UNDUE): "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space." JJB 17:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

By "Philosophy section", I mean the section John F. Ashton#Philosophy. This section gives unduly high proportion to what the minority, Ashton's fellow creationists, think, and unduly low proprortion to what Ashton's critics, being the overwhelming majority of the scientific community, thinks. This is in spite of the greater length and prominence of the material from the latter. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 18:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a call to add sources to me. But the first two grafs are pretty mainstreamized already. JJB 18:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

No. The problem appears to be (i) massive over-emphasis on what are frequently bare-mentions by sources of at-best marginal reliability, and massive under-emphasis on the scientific criticism of the views expressed in his book. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 03:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

So add scientific criticism sources. I did, with another Groves review, of 7th Mill. It also appears the Groves conference article gives the mainstream background well and could easily be used as a source for that since it clearly presents it relative to Ashton. Maybe I'll have time for that? JJB 17:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

regards overly long listing of ashton's publications

nobody wants to see anything more than a few of his most notable works referenced in an encyclopedia article. so instead, concentrate on finding 50 reputable independent sources that focus on ashton in detail. such effort will be a more effective approach against arguments on non-notability. Cesiumfrog (talk) 11:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Trimmed. JJB 17:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Expertise and reliability of sources for "putting forth evidence for six-day creation"

• MacDonald, James -- televangelist.
• O'Leary, Denyse -- journalist specialising in religion.
• Mauboussin, Michael J. -- investment banker.
• Miller, Tab -- cannot find any biographical information on this one, but nothing in his cited book seems to indicate any scientific expertise.

None of these appear to have any scientific background, so why should we consider them to have any competence, let alone expertise, on the subject matter? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I do appreciate your bringing this to talk. These authors are not put forward as RS for scientific expertise. They are put forward as RS for demonstration of popular following (see WP:RSOPINION). The text properly attributes this view. I have no problem changing the wording, why don't you recommend some, as your last text recommendation was pretty good once the hasty errors were fixed? Whatever demonstrates the following in popular books that are reliable for stating their own opinions. Maybe "often cited popularly as supporting the Genesis creation mythos"? That text would not face any objection. JJB 17:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it demonstrates a fairly small and non-prominent WP:FRINGE following. None of these are particularly notable, even as creationists. The only one that I have previously come across, in a number of years of following the creationism movement, is O'Leary -- notorious on the blogosphere as a particularly ignorant, shrill and clumsy partisan of the movement. Their inclusion is blatant WP:UNDUE. Per WP:ABOUTSELF, we only include the opinions of unreliable sources in articles about themselves (and even then, subject to strict restriction). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

That core policy, which I've worked on, only applies to SPS and QS (and also does not rigidly exclude their opinion from other articles in any case). If these authors had written their own e-books, for instance, or had no editors, they'd be SPS or QS. However, these are all mainstream books with editorial oversight. They are not required to be notable, of course. And one of them is not a creationist book but is about philosophy in general. Why don't you source your OR about O'Leary please, especially in such a way that it avoids WP:COATRACK? Off-topic, should I join Wikipedia:WikiProject Creationism? JJB 18:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• "Because with this post O'Leary has achieved a level of cluelessness to which most ID proponents can only aspire."[1]
• "one Denyse O'Leary, a Canadian journalist who is a notorious apologist for ID creationism"[2]
• "First she quotes the paleontologist T. Berra as saying that cars, like fossils, show “descent with modification”. Then she puts words in Berra’s mouth, implying that Berra has said that cars have genes and offspring, and that Berra has called automotive engineers liars."[3]

(I could probably provide more, if need be.)

Are you claiming that WP:FRINGE sources aren't QS? Creationists pervasively have "a poor reputation for checking the facts" (see http://www.talkorigins.org/ for a massive listing of their errors and misrepresentations). Please reread WP:UNDUE -- level of coverage is explicitly required to be "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint". Passing mention in completely non-prominent sources should not be included. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 18:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

(incredulous) After all your demonstrations about RS you're asking me to rely on blogs for this POV? Surely O'Leary's "poor reputation for checking the facts" can be proven without reliance on a source that has no automatic reputation? WP:FRINGE broadly means any significant departure from majority POV, not automatic QS. I also think I told you once that UNDUE says, "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space." JJB 18:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Adjunct professor

Hrafn brings an interesting source about Australian professors, which is probably appropriate for some WP article. I appreciate your sourcing this, although it doesn't say adjunct professoriats are "purely" honorary, it says they're given for ongoing contribution (p. 11) and appropriate use is dependent on ethical standards (p. 1). As stated, Hrafn didn't accept the original inserter's claim of professoriat on its own terms ('not a professor ("legitimate" or otherwise)'), though I trust the term "adjunct professor" can now stand. At any rate I sourced the fact that he co-supervised 11 doctorate students, but I am too unexperienced with academia to determine whether this means he's what Groves would call a "proper" professor. JJB 18:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The titles ‘Adjunct Professor’, ‘Conjoint Professor’ and ‘Professorial Fellow’ are all used by different universities to describe the same thing: they are honorary titles that allow universities to formalise and recognise non-employment relationships with people external to the university with whom they have what is often termed ‘a special relationship’. ... The appointment is unremunerated; however, universities usually reimburse expenses

I think an explicitly "unremunerated" "non-employment relationship" "honorary title" counts as "purely" honorary. I would further point out that no evidence of Collins even being an Adjunct Professor had been produced at the time I made the quoted comment, and that his position with his full-time employer (which had been produced) is considerably below that of professor. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 18:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, when we find something unsourced in the article, we AGF that the original inserter had a valid reason for saying it (that he's an adjunct professor), rather than use OR to argue against it (not a professor legitimate or otherwise). As it stands, the question of how proper a professor is neither fitting for AFD nor for this talk, unless you think that this source should be added for balance and that it would not be a WP:COATRACK. Now that's the second time you've mentioned someone named Collins; are you sure this is the right page for you? JJB 19:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It was not "something unsourced in the article" -- it was a semi-random and unsubstantiated claim made on the AfD. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Cesiumfrog's claim was, "In my opinion, any legitimate university professor who ... is notable." Since AFD commenters generally read the article, it can be presumed that Cesiumfrog got that from Ashton being called an adjunct professor, unsourced, in this article. I'm sorry if you didn't recognize the connection between those two. If you would like me to strike my "didn't AGF about" comment and make it "didn't read" I'll do that now. JJB 07:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Under the Australian system, "adjunct professor" is a substantial honour; ordinary adjunct academics would be "adjunct lecturer" or "adjunct research fellow." -- 202.124.73.201 (talk) 11:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

At RMIT, specifically, adjunct professors are persons "of eminence in a profession or industry" associated with the university: see RMIT University 1999 Annual Report. -- 202.124.75.59 (talk) 09:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

RMIT gave out 14 adjunct professor titles that year, contrast to only two honorary degrees -- hardly particularly selective or prestigious. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 10:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure it is, when RMIT has over 3,600 academic staff all up: adjunct professors are well ahead of ordinary academics (i.e. "professors" in the US sense). Also adjuncts work with the university, in contrast to honorary degrees. -- 202.124.75.59 (talk) 10:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

You have demonstrated no evidence that "adjunct professors are well ahead of ordinary academics", only that most academics want to be actually paid for their work. An 'Adjunct Professor' is a volunteer academic -- which is perhaps why they receive a posh-sounding (though essentially meaningless) title -- to make up for the fact that they don't get paid anything. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 09:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I would further point out the fact that these positions appear to come with "No Phone", and thus presumably no permanent office, that they really are marginal/intangible positions. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I would (further, further) point out that we have no third-party source attesting to the prominence of these positions -- all we have is one of the universities, Ashton's church's magazine and Ashton himself. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 08:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

"Ashton is principal food research scientist at the University of Newcastle."

Aston is not currently listed on the University of Newcastle staff directory, the first two citations make no mention of him being a "principle food research scientist" there, and the third citation dates to 2002. I would therefore suggest that this information is out of date, and should no longer be stated in the present tense. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

As to the AFD questions, his position at Sanitarium is current per LinkedIn. JJB 10:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Wow! Now that's what I call a reliable source!!! You're joking, right? Don't tell me you're going to add a "reference" to a LinkedIn profile?? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Why do you think I mentioned it on the talk page instead of in the article? JJB 15:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Gail Baura's opinion

I would question why the views of an engineering professor, made in an opinion piece in a magazine in an field unrelated to the topic of the book, is considered worthy of inclusion. Incidentally, as this magazine is behind a paywall, I would suggest that it would be appropriate to give a quotation of the piece here on talk. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 08:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Also is it the book's critics (old version of article) that who is "tongue-in-cheek wondering whether its Bible-based notions like "the earth is less than 10,000 years old" and "Noah's flood is explained by tectonics" are compatible with independent thought" or Baura herself (current version)? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 08:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Both, it is the book's critic, Baura. JJB 09:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Quote please! And context. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 10:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Already added. Obviously "tongue-in-cheek wondering" is my characterization because she never says she's tongue-in-cheek. JJB 15:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed that the full text (not just the abstract as the page suggests) is contained below the blurb (silly of me not to notice this). Your entire characterisation of it was grossly inaccurate. She simply cites the book for the existence of a couple of basic YEC views (in a list of 10 creationist views). In actuality she never "wonders" about, or even directly mentions, the book. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Bad editing!

In response to this edit summary]:

1. Do not EVER source a claim based solely on a Google snippet view -- it is very bad editorial practice, universally condemned on Wikipedia.
2. In fact Mauboussin makes no mention whatsoever of the book (and certainly doesn't state it as being "directed toward supporting the Genesis creation mythos"), he merely cites it for Kurt Wise's view.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 08:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Citing is mentioning. Naturally, when we combine several sources the gloss doesn't always arise from any one source. If the gloss becomes a poor fit due to intermediate editing, we refactor. JJB 09:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

{{trout}}

GET A FRACKING CLUE! -- no, citing is NOT "mentioning", when he only cites it for Wise's opinions, and does not say anything about the book! More importantly when he does not say anything about the book, he CANNOT state anything, even vaguely suggesting, that the book is "directed toward supporting the Genesis creation mythos". That is a (ludicous) inference and thus impermissible WP:Synthesis.

Your idiotic claim amounts to a claim that anybody who cites the book is stating that it is "directed toward supporting the Genesis creation mythos". This is obviously silly. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 09:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

A writer who paraphrases a book for two pages is saying something about the book, and in this case is certainly saying that the portions of the book he paraphrases have a particular direction. However, the placement in the article was getting degraded enough to border on synthesis, so I have already moved the reference to the sentence it does support. No, it's illogical to say that, simply because this book cites Ashton and I believe it states a creationist direction for his book, it would follow that I think any book that cites Ashton states a creationist direction for his book. Was this fishing expedition directed toward improving this article? If you wish to make personal comments, since you seem to have difficulty navigating my user dab page, try this link: JJB 09:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

But given your latest reversion, what I usually do with editors who don't seem to like any version of the article is to attempt to use their own words. How about if I quoted you to the effect: "Michael Mauboussin merely cites In Six Days for Wise's view." and used that as the tag sentence for this reference? JJB 10:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, he was "saying something about" Kurt Wise. He does not even mention the book, other than to cite it in a footnote. And it is ludicrously unreasonable to suggest that what he states about Wise, one of only of 50 of its testimonies, applies to the book as a whole. That he cites the book in discussing Wise's views as a creationist, cannot (without massive synthesis) be taken as suggesting that he considers the book to be "directed toward supporting the Genesis creation mythos" -- assuming that rather vague phrasing even means anything. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 10:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Great, so that's a yes, he cites it for Wise's view, as you said in point 2 atop this section. JJB 10:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

"directed toward supporting the Genesis creation mythos"

What does this phrase actually mean? As far as I can tell it says nothing more than the adjective "creationist". The sentence therefore equates to "Many fellow creationists and others cite the book as creationist" -- which is obvious to the point of redundancy, particularly given both Ashton's views and the title of the section.

Beyond that, what can we say? "Creationists like it because it is creationist"? Again redundant. "Creationists think it has really great and sciencey evidence showing that geology and evolution are poppicock"? Grossly WP:UNDUE and well outside their area of expertise. The trouble is that these sources really don't say anything suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. As Harlan Ellison said, "You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 10:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think you said creationists aren't entitled to say anything but their opinion, and sometimes not even that, so I don't know how else you want it. If you prefer I can summarize what each book says with a separate sentence, but then you wanted them bunched together too because there wasn't enough weight for the mainstream even though this is an article on the minority. Let's make a deal. You change your !vote to keep (seeing how many deleted edits you'd have otherwise), and I'll back off. Otherwise just let me know what the sources say for their WP:RSOPINION and we can include that instead of a summary that I suggested because you didn't like the previous summary. JJB 10:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Probably the most accurate description of them is: "An author cites the book for the views of Kurt Wise, and number of fellow creationists make brief, but positive, mention of it." That would at least be an accurate general summary of the sources -- but runs into the problem of (i) being WP:UNDUE (in that further substantive commentary from existing sources should be included instead) & (ii) is remarkably trivial and uninformative (but then so is the original). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 10:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that, at the end of the day: (i) none of these sources are in the least bit prominent & (ii) none of them, individually, have anything interesting to say about Aston or his book. This means that trying to cobble them together (a) is WP:Synthesis, (b) is still uninteresting & (c) still doesn't make the Frankenstein monster of their combined opinion particularly prominent. These sorts of sources routinely get left out of decent articles -- that you are trying to keep them is indicative of how thin the coverage actually is. (This is quite beside the WP:FRINGE/reliability aspect.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 11:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

(i) Add sources. (ii) Expand from these sources. (i) Sources are never required to be prominent. (ii) Nor interesting. (a) Tag the syn. (b) See (ii). (c) See WP:BASIC about accumulation of sources. JJB 15:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

(i) Add crap sources + (ii) give WP:UNDUE weight to them + (iii) grossly misrepresent them = totally crap article. "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint" = prominence matters. Even the best sources in this article would be considered marginal in most other articles. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Undue weight to bare citations

Why is the Mauboussin and Baura material in the article at all? They say nothing at all about Aston or his book. This is grossly WP:UNDUE, and obvious padding-to-give-the-appearance-of-notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Creationism

I contend that he is not known for his creationism and that the (badly sourced) material in that section is therefore undue. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I think he is best known for his books advocating creationism. (Admittedly most of which organise large numbers of apparently respectable experts to express similar religious/creationist views rather than directly expressing his own views per se.) Perhaps that section should be retitled to better direct the focus onto his body of work rather than his motivating personal views? Cesiumfrog (talk) 04:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Cold reversion

Please do not cold-revert an edit that combines new text along with restored disputed text. Further, the edit also implied that another edit was coming (now done) to properly relate the article to the massive coverage of In Six Days that has been stable for a long time in the Kurt Wise article. It's odd that that article gave more coverage to the book than this. Further interaction should be responsive to the general agreement on retaining Farrell as a source, and to the consensus at Kurt Wise. Finally, your deletion of these sources is inconsistent with your delete !vote at AFD; if the article should be deleted, not only would you have no alleged interest in improving it, you'd want the inclusionists to be able to present their best version to demonstrate your alleged stated confirmation in the deletion view at any cost. Please explain how you resolve this conflict. JJB 15:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

This is an article about John Aston, adding a section about Kurt Wise has no relevance to this article. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You too have cold-reverted content that contains other material than the material you object to. This is bad etiquette. You too have ignored consensus at Kurt Wise. Please explain how you wish to accommodate this consensus. You too have !voted delete and are still arguing about improving the article. Please explain the conflict. JJB 15:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Consensus about this article is reached here, not on another article. What consensus are you even referring to? IRWolfie- (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Stop restoring disputed material and get some consensus. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, several people are arguing at AFD that Farrell (the third reverted proposal) is exceedingly relevant to this topic. If you and David don't want Farrell in the article, please stop arguing against Ashton being a professor at AFD; your and his deletion of Farrell suggests notability is established in that Farrell is irrelevant and he is a notable professor. You have also not answered my questions. I acknowledge that this is technically reverts of three different proposals, accordingly I will not present new proposals for consensus. However, I reserve the right to make minor improvements that are not reversions, and to create history drafts clearly marked for immediate self-undo to ensure that no sources are lost in the craze. JJB 16:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC) Also, you claimed Farrell is a synthesis; however, not only is there no synthesis demonstrated as the two sources are used for two different claims, but also the widespread advocacy for Farrell suggests nobody else thinks of it as synthesis either. JJB 16:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussions at AfD's do not dictate article content, they dictate the existence of articles. The appropriate location to reach consensus about article content is here. That is WP:SYN is an article space policy and is not relevant at AfD. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Demonstrate the synthesis. JJB 18:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Seriously? Farrell doesn't mention Ashton. Synthesis identification complete. 18:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you meant syn in combo with RMIT, as syn often means from two sources. Yes naturally Farrell doesn't mention Ashton, but there I was advocating for several editors who inserted her acting like she did. JJB 19:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• "Cold reversion" is amply warranted when the material is patently irrelevant. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 19:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I missed the beginning of this debate and I've been unable to identify what material was removed. Could somebody link to the relevant diffs? --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

At this instant 50% of the material has been removed: [4]. Cold reversion means a complete and usually poorly documented reversion to a prior state, and I define it as one that does not provide detailed rationale in summary or talk for the reversion (a bald policy link is insufficient). There were two cold reversions together: David Eppstein accused "tendentious re-insertion of very-low-quality sources" even though the edit also included new phrasing about the professoriats and some format fixes; and IRWolfie- accused "This is off topic" even though the edit had those same on-topic sources and new data about Kurt Wise that is still appropriate for community discussion. If any part of the material is not patently irrelevant, the editor who desires to revert should distinguish the objectionable parts (WP:BRD) and the nonobjectionable parts (WP:PRESERVE), rather than coldly revert. JJB 03:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional sources

Beyond the 70 sources considered here already, here are some random sources I thought interesting that I haven't determined whether to include; maybe someone can take it from there: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. JJB 20:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm relatively incredulous about how this article has fared since about 4-5 editors en masse decided not just to argue for deletion but also to argue every little point. My comments on the RFC might be summarized by saying that, since I was tasked with an immense burden in proving notability, I didn't work hard on neatness and organization and the things that this sudden burst of editing is now working on. However, for future reference, my preferred baseline for evaluation has 65 sources, relatively properly placed but not with an attempt to weight or organize what the sources say; and there is also a version with 69 sources and some consensus text from Kurt Wise that needs consideration as well. Hmm, 39819 bytes tops, and now 25806 24814 20434 bytes. JJB 15:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

groves review

Groves published an extended review of I6D in a skeptics journal. He also made extended reference to Ashton & I6D in an article that sought to scientifically explain not just the origin of humans but also the causes of our worldviews, published in

Groves, Colin (2003). "The Science of Culture" (PDF). Being Human: Science, Culture and Fear. Misc. series (63). The Royal Society of New Zealand.

David Eppstein recently removed the reference to this second Groves source. But to my mind, the second reference is even more important than the first, particularly since it is now decided that the notability-axe will continue to hang over this article for its foreseeable near-future, and noting that the former source has been argued to be somewhat run-of-the-mill (since a skeptics journal routinely seeks out works of fringe views to address). The second reference instead is a reputable conference proceedings on a non-fringe subject (i.e., it would be expected not to discuss truly insignificant works).

What I think it illustrates is that Ashton altered the creationism debate. Hypothetically it's like if someone were to present a hundred climate scientists who all agree on one particular conclusion which completely contradicts the IPCC, the mainstream camp would no longer be able to ignore each climate-denier as inevitable isolated crackpot outliers and instead would need to start investigating the causes of a significant bimodality fraction in educated-conclusions. Ashton killed the argument that sane people would necessarily abandon creationism once educated, which has then here required Groves (and other subsequent opponents of creationism) to start to focus on issues like cognitive dissonance or compartmentalism and what factors really determine someone holding/changing particular views (rather than presuming that the strongest reasoned arguments automatically win out immediately among scientific experts in all cases).

The phrasing of the page is also suspect:

In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation, an anthology of testimonies of creationist scientists that has been reviewed negatively by skeptics[Groves] but positively by religionists.

If nothing else, the word "religionists" is biased (it is a term for slander and almost never for self-identification), and more reasonably could be replaced by the phrase "Seventh Day Adventists and other Christians". (I also don't think proponents of the mainstream scientific consensus need to be labelled "skeptics", for example it isn't the term I would label Dawkins with on this issue.) Cesiumfrog (talk) 03:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I removed the RSNZ source because it only spends a single paragraph in a 13-page paper about the book, and (as it's by the same author as the longer review) it doesn't really provide any additional support for the conclusion that skeptics think the book is stupid. But I don't feel as strongly about this one as I do about some of the other things I just took out, and it does have some nicely quotable concentrated negativity: "Like all exercises in 'creation science' [the book] involves a lot of double-think, special pleading, and blatant junking of facts that stubbornly refuse to fit." (p.9). The longer version of this article that I cut back had a more inane quote from the Groves review about how this book would likely fail to convince non-believers, and if we're going to quote-mine (not that I think doing so is a good idea) then I think the RSNZ quote is probably a more accurate representation of Groves' opinion. As for replacing "religionists" with "Christians", I think many Christians would likely find it insulting to be told that their faith makes them be young Earth creationists. But I didn't intent that word as a pejorative, so if there's a more neutral term that includes the young-Earthers and doesn't falsely include others who are not, that might be a more appropriate choice. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Partial digression

Actually, consensus is that a hypothetical second AFD would be premature for circa two months, so you have some time. I'm watchlisting but have "done enough" for now. It is not important at this instant to reinstate every last source, which is why I backed off when I saw tag-team cold-reverting ("cold" means that the entire edit was reverted including unrelated portions not specifically objected to; this is always an error).

In every case of source removal the arguments were invalid (sorry David; e.g. the RSNV paper had several relevant grafs, not one). But that's not important. Our first phase was to determine whether there was consensus for nonnotability, and there wasn't. Yesterday and today this transitioned into determining what are the most and least significant sources for building the article that there is no consensus to delete. When I saw that transition coming, both in the deletions and in the strong POV changes in how the sources were described in-text, I just took my hands off because I knew the discussion had shifted and a different response was called for. Let them have their fun now for a little while. The article is greatly improved from where it was, even with the hatchet jobs in all senses of the word. Let the article return to the harmonious gradualism that resolves these questions in the long haul. (Hmm, you'd think evolutionists (if any) would like gradualism, rather than, er, an editing style that amounts to catastrophism.)

If it were me, I would've used the conference paper instead of the two WP:COATRACK sources for the statement "this is not mainstream science" (it seems a near-classic review of the mainstream and all just to oppose this guy Ashton who had nothing to do with I6D); but that statement and those sources are happily gone too. Your source might be a coatrack if it says absolutely nothing about the topic. Farrell was another coatrack, but I stetted it until this fact was realized by the !side that inserted it.

Certainly there are probably several POV statements now (tag them!) and really screechy ones perhaps. (Though offhand, in your proposed fix, I don't think Ashton's support is so highly SDA rather than interdenominational that it merits another mention of the denom.) But work step by step.

For one thing, not a single person at AFD ever specifically rebutted the seven reviews of God Factor, Perils of Progress, or Seventh Millennium. One of those reviews was by Groves. Every other source was specifically rebutted at least in part and in small groups. Thus (to those who wanted to know this at AFD) those seven, and similar sources from among the random list I put above, are now established by group analysis to be the securest claim to notability, viz., WP:AUTHOR #3. That means that's a good direction I'd build from. If you can work the conference paper back in and balance the POVs, more power to you.

When the verdict riots are over, we'll pick up the pieces, build from the policies that WP:FRINGE sources are expected to take up a large (often a majority) part of an article on a minority, and that fringe sources are RS for their own WP:RSOPINION. To use the age-old example, you don't go to the Flat Earth article to see 98%-100% of it be about oblate spheriods; you want a majority of the info to be about flatlands and a discreet but firm minority of the text to pointer to the alternatives. So gradualism works. I'll keep it on the watchlist.

Or maybe not. Maybe I'll work on another couple few articles that the rest of you aren't watching closely. Maybe I'll come back here with a paradigm changer built on a solid consensus elsewhere. Or maybe I'll do it in other places and your paradigm will be too weak to refuse. Whatever it takes to improve the encyclopedia. I love the fact that the collection of all human knowledge means that all of us are at risk of massive paradigm shifts just to be able to get along and still follow core policy. So, yes, please take my statement as both a threat and a promise. I have no problem threatening to improve WP. I'll be back. JJB 04:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• One problem that I have with the (current) Groves-based material is that it concentrates solely on listing contributors (a point Groves mentions only in passing), but avoids completely Groves' substantive criticisms of the book. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Talk to David Eppstein who removed the substantive Groves criticisms I put in. JJB 15:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

We are not required to get the agreement of any specific editor, but instead reach consensus. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:BOMBARDMENT on The God Factor

I see what we now have seven citations for the single sentence on The God Factor, including four for "describe their belief in God" (four citations for five words, must be a record, even for WP:BOMBARDMENT). Additionally, we have the WP:UNDUE sentence stating that a small (and from the lack of sourcing beyond its own website, most likely completely non-prominent), fundamentalist Australian college happens to list this as one of eight texts on their prescribed texts list, for a single course. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

To repeat something I said at the AfD,

WP:Bombardment is an essay... The primary concern of the essay seems to be that sources can be used redundantly....Here are a couple of quotes.  WP:Bombardment#When is bombardment bad? states, "Bombardment is not necessary when the sources are identical to one another or otherwise redundant."  WP:Bombardment#When is bombardment good? states, "Since one of the purposes of references is to provide the reader information beyond what the Wikipedia article says, providing more sources of information is a good thing."  Unscintillating (talk) 22:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Unscintillating (talk) 07:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Pointless argumentum ad nauseum repetition of a claim that is so non-specificly and vaguely boiler-plate that it adds nothing whatsoever to the conversation. See #RFC: repeated usage of multiple citations within single sentences. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
  • No, four citations for five words is no record, I've seen dozens on a couple of words. But that was WP:POINTy, this was in good faith. It's amazing how many sentences this particular editor finds as adding nothing. Maybe I'll do some more work on the bombardment essay. JJB 15:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Your example of multiple citations is where it was being used to be WP:POINTy? IRWolfie- (talk) 15:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

That (an editor putting dozens of citations on one term) was pointy, this (my use of three and once four at a time) was in good faith. JJB 16:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

That makes for a poor example then doesn't it? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

GROSS violation of WP:UNDUE

In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.

— WP:UNDUE

The current Creationism section makes NO "reference to the majority [scientific] viewpoint" and "represent[s] content strictly from the perspective of the minority [creationist] view." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the gross violation of undue is spending more than a few sentences on this book, because it is primarily not the work of the subject but of other people. Adding addintionally material telling people what they should already know regardless of their beliefs, that young Earth creationism is against the scientific consensus, is almost as useful here as adding additional material to the chocolate section detailing the etiquette in 17th-century European chocolate houses: off topic padding. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree, the material verges off topic and appears to be undue. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. The quoted policy is not applicable to this page as it is not an "article[] specifically about a minority viewpoint." Instead it's an article about a person who embraces a religious (not scientific) viewpoint (as explained in the lead of Young earth creationism). It is neither undue, as it is information people wanting to know about Mr. Ashton would desire regardless of their opinion on young earth creationism, nor is it presenting fringe theories (to what ever extent it's appropriate to describe religious beliefs as fringe) as that presentation takes place on the young earth creationism page, where an interested reader has to go to learn about that theory. Eastshire (talk) 13:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

If it's not about the fringe viewpoint then we shouldn't mention it at all per WP:FRINGE and if we do, reflect the balance of sources. Being a particular creationists BLP does not give a free lunch to describe the position without balance and we still don't have to treat it as WP:VALID. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

You continue to try to apply guidelines (not even policy, mind) for articles on a fringe viewpoint to an article on a person. The section does not describe the position. It instead links to a wiki article that describes the position and is not presenting it as valid. Again, guidelines for articles about fringe theories do not able to biographies that happen to mention that the subject subscribes to that theory. At most, a parenthetical aside such as "(a disputed alternative to the Big Bang theory)" should be added after "creationist" in the first sentence of the section. Eastshire (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you re-read the guideline, it is not specific to articles on a fringe viewpoint. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I have had a closer look. The guideline applies to articles about the mainstream idea, the fringe idea and other articles to the extent that there isn't a RS connecting the other article to the fringe idea. It also gives as a specific example that creationism isn't a fringe idea unworthy of mention on WP as "vigorous discussion . . . give the idea more than adequate notability . . ." Wikipedia:FRINGE#Examples. But beyond all of that, I can't imagine that someone wanting to know about Mr. Ashton not wanting to know Mr. Ashton is a proponent of creationism, regardless of the reader's thoughts on the validity or lack thereof of creationism. Eastshire (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in this fight. As I said, you could use the Groves NZ conference paper to demonstrate the majority viewpoint in situ and without coatracking; it meanders for several pages on what Groves knows about skulls before realizing its whole point is to discredit Ashton's 50 friends, along with Gish & Co. But the idea that discussion of Ashton's books is off topic is again odd to me. JJB 15:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC) It also appears that Hrafn and IRWolfie- might need a refresher. Sitewide consensus applied to this article, as quoted by Hrafn, is that the majority of viewpoint discussion in this article should be about Ashton's views (usually a thinker bio has a large section about the subject's views) and that an opposing majority view should be represented briefly and properly distinguished. The idea that this consensus does not apply to bios would not actually give a significantly different result. Prior editing suggests, though, that determining what clauses are about which view might not be easily agreed and might take a lot of discussion. Further, David Eppstein is clearly mistaken about using "it is primarily not the work of the subject" as an argument, as previously advertised: guidance is that the editorial work of soliciting, proofreading, formatting, combining, introducing, and publishing papers is treated with complete equality with the work of writing a book independently. It is not (mostly) his writing, but it is emphatically his work. JJB 15:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Your comment is indecipherable. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

"Your comment is indecipherable." Do you desire to know what I mean by my comment of 15:39? JJB 16:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

mostly this sentence: Sitewide consensus applied to this article, as quoted by Hrafn, is that the majority of viewpoint discussion in this article should be about Ashton's views (usually a thinker bio has a large section about the subject's views) and that an opposing majority view should be represented briefly and properly distinguished. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Relevant Wikipedia consensus is established by undue-weight policy as quoted by Hrafn. Applying that consensus to this article would indicate that the article should include discussion of all viewpoints. The majority of the discussion would be about Ashton's views and the views of those closely associated with him. Since Ashton is noted for his philosophy, among other achievements, it is appropriate to have a level-3 (three equals signs) section describing his views. The rest of the discussion would be about viewpoints alternative to Ashton's, and would also include reaction to any viewpoint by holders of any other viewpoint. The majority view should be represented as the majority view without ado, and should not be the primary focus of the portion of the article dealing with viewpoints. That is all standard operating procedure at Wikipedia.

This analysis assumes that the quotation applies to biographies. Since there was a question raised locally about whether "undue weight" applies to biographies rather than solely to articles about the viewpoints themselves, this is being discussed separately at neutrality talk, as you know. JJB 20:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

You have misread the WP:UNDUE policy. The majority viewpoint refers to the mainstream viewpoint, (i.e the viewpoint of the majority). It's prominence should not be sidelined. It clearly does apply to biographies. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I have not misread it. You have agreed with me that some of the discussion should be about alternative (majority) viewpoints. I believe it applies to biographies too, but not everyone seems to. JJB 01:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps Hrafn's complaint is now moot? I have edited the creationism section to describe his creationist views more specifically (based on what he says in the Ministry 2001 article) and in the process added a mention that these views are contrary to mainstream scientific consensus. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

RFC: repeated usage of multiple citations within single sentences

This article repeatedly cites single sentences to multiple (frequently large numbers) of citations. Are these citations appropriate, or do they constitute WP:BOMBARDMENT and/or WP:Synthesis (e.g by making evaluative claims about Ashton's main fields of expertise based upon original analysis of his papers)? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

This RFC refers to this baseline draft of the article. JJB 15:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

To repeat something I said at the AfD,

WP:Bombardment is an essay... The primary concern of the essay seems to be that sources can be used redundantly....Here are a couple of quotes.  WP:Bombardment#When is bombardment bad? states, "Bombardment is not necessary when the sources are identical to one another or otherwise redundant."  WP:Bombardment#When is bombardment good? states, "Since one of the purposes of references is to provide the reader information beyond what the Wikipedia article says, providing more sources of information is a good thing."  Unscintillating (talk) 22:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Unscintillating (talk) 07:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

(i) Please explain (for example) how the 7 citations for the single sentence on the existence and topic of The God Factor does not constitute blatant 'redundancy'. (ii) Repeating argumentum ad nauseum a claim, that is such non-specific vague boiler-plate, adds nothing whatsoever. (iii) Multiple citations for a single statement may at times be warranted (e.g. where the statement has been heavily contested), but repeated employment on a a topic with tissue-thin notability raises the very real and legitimate suspicion that "the placement of a large number of references in an article [is] in hopes that this will prevent it from ever getting deleted", particularly as one of the main offenders has made repeated (to a point well beyond argumentum ad nauseum) reference to the number of citations in this article in defense of its purported notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 08:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment The article is full of excessive citations for trivial material. It also is grouping primary sources like here: [21] to come to conclusions that no source has (hence synthesis). IRWolfie- (talk) 10:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Response to RfC: I think the refs are fine: they are needed to prove the point, and counting them is not in fact WP:OR, per WP:CALC. -- 202.124.75.59 (talk) 09:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a basic calculation like working out someones age based on a source giving his date of birth. You are coming to a conclusion that no reliable source does. It is a synthesis of primary sources and has no due weight to be in the article IRWolfie- (talk) 10:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

No, counting a few citations is 100% verifiable under WP:CALC. I think even our primary-school readers can count. In any case, please don't pre-empt the RfC, and please do not do blanket removal of sources. -- 202.124.75.59 (talk) 10:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

You aren't counting a few citations, you are coming to a conclusion that no source has based on grouping primary sources together. I suggest you revert your addition of synthesis of primary sources into this BLP article. Do not accuse me of "bordering on vandalism" as you did here: [22]. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm assuming good faith, but blanket removal of all references did get very close to vandalism. Also simple addition is not a synthesis per WP:CALC. -- 202.124.75.59 (talk) 10:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

No, the article does not 'count a few citations', it selects papers and reaches an original conclusion about Ashton's fields of expertise based upon them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 10:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't claim expertise, it simply says he's published in those areas. The citations are verifiable evidence of that, though they would of course not be evidence for "is expert in" or "is known for." -- 202.124.75.59 (talk) 10:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

No source says that Ashton has published multiple papers on topics including soy milk, maca, and wheat. You have combined multiple primary sources to come to this conclusion. Whichever way you look at it, it's original research and original synthesis. Also it does not meet verifiability as defined by wikipedia: Verifiability on Wikipedia is a reader's ability to check cited sources that directly support the information in an article.. You are trying to use sources to indirectly support the material although no source states it. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding! I see the papers. I can see from their titles what they're about. I can count on my fingers to see that they are "multiple." That's all directly supported. -- 202.124.72.45 (talk)

What original research you can construct is irrelevant, no individual source directly states anything close to the sentence you added. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It clearly passes WP:V. The fact that you call it OR doesn't make it OR. -- 202.124.72.116 (talk) 00:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

No your position is specifically rejected, let me quote from WP:V: Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the NOR policy. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• No, WP:CALC does not apply:

1. This does not involve simply "Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age"
2. It involves WP:Synthesis in the selection of papers.
3. It involves an implicit conclusion, whether you view that conclusion as Ashton's areas of "expertise", "interest", "academic experience" or whatever.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 11:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

See above. There is no synthesis in selection of papers, since the major ones are included, nor is there an implicit conclusion as to "expertise" etc. -- 202.124.72.45 (talk) 11:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Determination of which papers are "major" is exactly the "WP:Synthesis in the selection of papers" I was talking about. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 12:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Going by your reasoning, we could never mention any specific papers in any article on any scientist. Picking out the more notable papers is exactly what an encyclopaedia should be doing. -- 202.124.72.116 (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Response:

(i)(a) Multiple citations per sentence: In the baseline draft, the first multiply cited sentence is about his multiple fellowships, the second about his multiple professoriats. The question asks whether multiple citations per sentence are appropriate, and they are clearly a well-known aspect of the V core policy.

(b) Over three citations per clause: The question may intend to ask about large numbers of citations per clause. For instance there are six citations relating to soy milk; this occurred when another editor trimmed a longer sentence (analyzing them by journal as per my intent) and uncritically threw in a seventh not relating to soy milk. I would counsel this editor that my rule of thumb is that appropriateness generally is demonstrated by stopping at two or three per clause, and excess is permitted only when significant variety makes the value clear to the reader. Naturally, the time pressure of an AFD may result in such traffic jams, which are neatly resolved by gradualists.

(ii) Bombardment: This new essay, as demonstrated at AFD, is primarily about multiple near-identical sources such as wire copy, and also has been used appropriately to argue against coatracking; however, the essay inappropriately contains several sentences that, lifted from their context, could easily be used to attack any number of articles unfittingly. I previously added a sentence to ensure that notability guidelines are respected, and more essay editing is appropriate. Multiple sources making similar statements in their own words are very appropriate for citation stacking and are not bombardment. Uncle G added at ANI on this point, "Yes, the discussion is long. But it's quite clear that people asked for the detail given," and I think this applies to the number of sources added to the article too.

(iii) Synthesis and original analysis:

(a) The OP's intent is hard to find in the baseline diff. Since it asks about "expertise" and a search on this word brings up the two Newcastle cites, it OP appears to refer to the sentence I inserted, "He has authored 18 university research publications including three books." The links state, "The publications ... relate to the researcher's position at the University," and identify the "Book" research publications separately, so the only issue with synthesis is the counting of the publications, which is clearly permitted by longstanding consensus.

(b) The OP later mentions the God Factor sentence, which in the baseline has eight references. In this case I perhaps overworked one sentence rather than analyzed each source separately. The intent was to show that three different universities permitted contributors to mention their God Factor contributions as resume enhancers; that three different authors described the content of God Factor, often in conjunction with the other two anthologies; that there had also been a full periodical review of the work; and that it was used as a prescribed college resource (total, eight sources). Though this is not blatant redundancy because of obvious variety, I agree it could convey that appearance, and it should be expanded to several sentences instead.

(c) IRWolfie- thrice suggests, "Saying that he has published multiple papers, and then listing multiple papers, is original research," in relation to the soy milk. This is of course not a calculation matter, but it is a primary-source question, and falls within the ordinary procedure for avoiding copyright violation by creating source-based research. The policy seems to have shifted since I last reviewed it, but a linked essay reaffirms that "primary sources can normally be used for non-controversial facts about the person" such as having published several papers on soy milk. I believe there are other strong consensus statements as well. I would also counsel IRWolfie- that his link appears to reveal a revert battle in which he took the side of converting a sourced sentence to an unsourced, which is much worse than any alleged synthesis: it fails core V policy and thus, if unexplained or repeated, does border on vandalism. There is an adhoc argument that listing the most-cited Scholar results might have selection bias, which does smack of returning to policy, but the fact is that we are selecting and rejecting results all the time in our editing, and so taking top results is not significantly biased (quoting some representatives of the hundreds who cite Ashton would of course be an improvement).

(iv) Summary: Thank you for inviting community review. While most of the citations are fully appropriate, the process does identify a couple improvements, which I look forward to seeing implemented. JJB 15:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

This has no connection at all in any way to avoiding copyright violations. You have also clearly misread the diff if you think any statement was turned into an unsourced one. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

David Eppstein brought copyright violation into the picture; it requires us to paraphrase, especially if it's being mentioned for such a short sentence. As you can see, you turned a sentence with 8 citations to "Ashton has researched on topics including soy milk, maca, and wheat" with no citations. I don't believe I misread what happened, although certainly your reason for doing so was not necessarily to thumb your nose at core policy. JJB 22:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the sentence should be removed in it's entirety. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

David Eppstein appears to be referring to a direct copy and paste from a source, that is not at issue here and thus is irrelevant. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment-we can argue for days about what policy, guideline, or essay best applies here. My first pick would be WP:UNDUE-he's not even the primary author in any of these. Being fifth author of a study with just a couple of citations under its belt doesn't warrant mention here. Please. This article should be cut way back and some perspective is in order here. It's ridiculous that there be more such publications cited/listed here than there are listed in Albert Einstein. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you actually saying you read Einstein's article and it doesn't cite/list at least eight papers? That's a bit much. JJB 22:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

His has about 30, and so does this one, which is more than a bit much. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see your paragraph moved from "study" to the more generic "publication". The case is still not parallel, because Einstein's article is a WP:SUMMARY of many other articles discussing his hundreds of publications in more detail. Ashton having only one article would see all the significant publications (e.g. mentioned by RS) in one article. I have always preferred full bibliographies. JJB 22:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Demonstrate it with the link to the article which contains hundreds of papers by Einstein. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Seriously? List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein. Cf. Einstein Papers Project, Annus Mirabilis papers, history of general relativity, Bohr-Einstein debates, Albert Einstein's political views, Albert Einstein's religious views. JJB 01:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Note now that each of these separate articles is themselves notable in their own regard. That is not the case here. So we are comparing apples and oranges. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• In addition to the problem correctly described by Hrafn, we have a WP:SELFPUB problem in this article. (tagged accordingly) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe so: the articles and books are not self-published. -- 202.124.72.29 (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Fine -- if you prefer, we can call it original research. We need sources that amount to others writing about Ashton, not Ashton writing about Ashton. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I note that Hrafn is demanding more scientific references in the food research section. -- 202.124.73.174 (talk) 09:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Currently non-scientific references are being used for scientific claims. In some cases an excessive 4 or 5 at a time. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Break away from rfc

I removed this large list of primary sources: [23]. Saying that he has published multiple papers, and then listing multiple papers, is original research. The sources do not state he has published multiple papers. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

See the RfC discussion above. -- 202.124.75.59 (talk) 10:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

"Notable" "Scientists"?

I would point out that neither Morris nor Cuozzo is a scientist, the former's doctorate is in engineering, the latter's in dentistry. Additionally, Cuozzo does not appear to be particularly notable, as Jack Cuozzo simply redirects to Devolution (biology)#Creationist use. I would therefore suggest substituting "academics" for "scientists" and dropping Cuozzo. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 08:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Witt is likewise an engineer not a scientist. Likewise Andrew Snelling redirects to Answers in Genesis, Larry Vardiman redirects to Institute for Creation Research, and J. H. John Peet redirects to Biblical Creation Society, so should likewise be dropped as non-notable.

I don't think a dentist would be viewed as a scientist or an academic. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

He has a doctorate in dentistry, so is arguably an academic. But he has almost no visibility as a creationist. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 10:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I thought Professor Ashton's notibility as a scientist derives mainly from his work as a food scientist / gastroestromologist as described in the lead of the article. Is this citation erroneous or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrPhen (talk • contribs) 15:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Notability for in-article list inclusion is often defined by whether the topic is mentioned elsewhere on Wikipedia as an article or redirect, though other criteria can be locally decided. In this case I listed all writers with links as well as unlinked editors mentioned by Groves; but I have no problem with our deleting the latter class. The fact that they are not (yet) notable enough for an article, but they are notable enough for a redirect, is specifically not a reason for list exclusion, as the link makes clear. That is, nonnotable people appear in in-article lists all the time. We should not engage in original research such as "dentists are not scientists" when we have sources stating the person in question is a scientist, and we should emphatically not use that original research in editing decisions. JJB 15:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

DrPhen, scientist notability has a high bar, which I believed was met by Ashton's multiple fellowships and professoriats, and his high citation rates. However, author notability has a different bar, and in this case that bar was never specifically rebutted as to Ashton's reviewability for at least three books. Accordingly, you could conclude from the AFD that he's more notable as an author than as a scientist; but this is not reflected in the lead because that reflects the current (often-silent) consensus of what the current editors want there. The citation (saying he is a food scientist) is correct, but the focus may be off by excluding authoring. If you look up the guidance on lead-writing, you might find some good ideas that haven't yet been implemented. JJB 15:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Ashton wasn't being discussed in the above. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, IRWolfie-'s comment makes me realize I misread an ambiguity. The "dentist" is one of the contributors to Ashton's book, not Ashton himself. JJB 17:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The point of the word "notable" here was to select only the contributors who have bluelinked Wikipedia articles rather than listing all 50 of them indiscriminately. But if you want to change it from "scientists" to "engineers and scientists" or whatever, that would be ok with me. Just don't start expanding the lists, it's long enough already. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• No JJB, "notability for in-article list inclusion" is NOT "often defined" by mere mention elsewhere, or the mere existence of a redirect -- both abysmally low standards. The normal default standard is that they have "verifiable notability", which is generally taken to mean that they have an article and thus meet WP:BIO. Whilst exceptions may be made to this, they would generally require some sort of valid specific justification. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Did Ashton discover the composition of chocolate?

From the current version:

"Ashton's book A Chocolate a Day, coauthored with his daughter-in-law Suzy Ashton, claims that a single chocolate bar contains more antioxidants than six apples and has a stronger antiaging effect than red wine,[23][11][24] and that two ounces (50 grams) of chocolate per day are sufficient for a high intake of potassium, magnesium, calcium and polyphenols."

Surely the composition of chocolate was well known to most food scientists long before Ashton's book. Chocolate is amongst the world's most studied substances. Are these facts that Ashton discovered or are they simply well-known facts about chocolate that Ashton saw fit to include in his book?

And to claim that chocolate has "stronger antiaging effect than red wine" seems bizarre - is there even a WP:MEDRS source whcich suggests that red wine has this property or that red wine is normally used as a benchmark for "antiaging" effects? Is "antiaging" even a recognized medical term? --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The sentence does not say he claims the composition is thus, it says he claims two ounces are a sufficient diet of chocolate, which is a new claim widely cited to him. Your question "did Ashton discover" does not appear sincere. For red wine, see resveratrol. For use of "antiaging", see a medical dictionary. Your statement, saying that the source's claim is bizarre, is original research. For these reasons and others, I may engage in a voluntary interaction ban with you for short or long periods of time. JJB 22:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Good suggestion JJB - I've searched a number of medical dictionaries online. The term "antiaging" (also "anti aging" or "anti-aging") seems to be widely used in pop-sci, fringe and pseudo-scientific texts but does not seem to be a commonly used medical term[24][25].

The notion that red-wine has life-extending properties is highly speculative, that's why it is meaningless to compare chocolate's life-extending properties with those of red-wine. Neither have been proven to exist.

Was Ashton the first person who discovered the quantity of chocolate required to provide the RDA of Potassium (etc). Was he first person to have published this information? Surely the composition of chocolate and the RDA for these substances has been well known for a long time. Is Ashton's synthesis of these data-sets original or in any way remarkable? --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of scientific novelty, his work achieved a fair amount of media attention, and is remarkable for that at least. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks David. JJB 01:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

That was a short voluntary interaction ban, I'll try a longer one later. Now I know what Salim uses in lieu of medical dictionaries. Try the successor of Noah Webster at http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/antiaging. Your view of the meaninglessness of the RS's claim is OR. The RS's also don't say Ashton says this is the RDA, they say Ashton says this is the healthiest maximum amount of chocolate to set. The RS's find it remarkable, meaning worthy of remark. You are now implying that Ashton himself is guilty of synthesis, which implies that you view yourself as more reliable than the RS's and really fails all attempts to handle your comments in good faith. Goodbye. JJB 01:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Alright, you guys, let's calm down. It's remember to important that our role under WP;V is NOT to evaluate the subject of the article but to ensure that it is notable, verifiable, and sourced to reliable sources. If Ashton claims, for example, that all dinosaurs are time-travelers from the future, we can include that in the article without asserting that it is true or false, just as long as it is a notable aspect of him and is sourced to reliable sources. Likewise, if his claim about anti-aging chocolate is a real claim, we can include it even if we think that he is wrong. DrPhen (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)]

DrPhen, my belief is that Ashton did claim that chocolate has a better antiaging effect than red-wine. I think the source is probably reporting something which was claimed in his book. My concern is that we should avoid representing this as anything but a fringe view. It would be OK to use this summary of Ashton's book as long as we also note that this particular view is not widely accepted. --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it's definitely an implausible claim, and I didn't mean suggest to that we present it as some kind of true statement of scientific fact on its own like that, only that we can include in the article *strictly* as Dr. Ashtons opinion rather than leaving it out because it's not true. It's kind of like how articles about creationists present their creationist beliefs in the article while reminding the reader that it's not a mainstream scientific perspective. The belief can be presented, but only as a belief and not as a fact. DrPhen (talk)`

DrPhen, I think this is a matter of context: He certainly seems to have made this claim and food-science is his field (I believe this was JJB's point). Could we use the word "speculate" rather than "claim" in the paragraph I originally quoted? --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Ashton is a respected food scientist, but medicine is not his area, and the Adventist anti-alcohol position may also be influencing him. I agree that wording on the claim should be very careful. -- 202.124.72.29 (talk) 01:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

UNDUE weighting to the reviews.

The ASA review was short, superficial, and made by a relatively unknown contributor. The Skeptic peice was far longer, in far more depth, and was made by a prominent scientist. That the article text gave the appearance that the former is some way cancelled out ("despite") the latter (or even that they are rough equivalents) is grossly misleading. I also would like to suggest that the quote given is hardly a representative summary. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you quote the section you are most concerned by and provide an alternative wording? --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Is any of this noteworthy?

Why is On the Seventh Day mentioned outside the bibliography

Given that it is cited solely to a short mention by a completely non-prominent (WP:DUE) ill-qualified (WP:RS) fellow (WP:FRINGE) creationist (Allen thinks that a marginal ill-qualified crank like Walt Brown is a "highly qualified scientist", and gives him more space than Ashton), why does it warrant any mention byond inclusion in the bibliography? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 08:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Uncorked!

Likewise, why does this book warrant three sentences, apparently based on no source other than the book itself? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 08:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Australian Research Council

Likewise is the fact that the Australian Research Council funded some work that he was part of noteworthy? It is "the Australian Government’s main agency for allocating research funding to academics and researchers in Australian universities." As such, I would think it highly unlikely that many Australian scientists who have worked in a university setting have managed to avoid ARC-funded research. Again, a third-party source (not some PR blurb from the university) is needed to demonstrate that this is in some way worthy of notice. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 09:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

This was added at your specific suggestion, because you wanted evidence that Ashton was actually involved in research associated with his professorships. -- 202.124.73.174 (talk) 09:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

(i) No, it was not made at my "specific suggestion" -- I never made any such specific suggestion. (ii) (Unrelated issue -- not "because") No, I never stated that I "wanted evidence that Ashton was actually involved in research associated with his professorships." The closest that I came was pointing out that the Wollongong citation does not state that he 'conducted research' (it still doesn't). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 10:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Then we need to keep the grant citations and the paper citations, to show that he conducted research. -- 202.124.73.174 (talk) 10:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

They make no statement whatsoever that Ashton was directly engaged in conducting the research. Only that he was in some way involved in the projects. But you have completely FAILED to address my original point that the ARC's involvement is IRRELEVANT.' 10:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

That he is a researcher in food is already mentioned in the Biography section. The whole first paragraph of Food research is OR and synthesis. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Synthesis of papers

Since Two-two is attempting to take over #Australian Research Council above to discuss this, I am creating a new subthread.

My position is that you cannot, and particularly cannot without impermissible WP:Synthesis, determine from the bare mention of Ashton in a university PR release, or as a non-primary co-author of a paper, that he had a direct involvement in conducting the research. He may have been involved in a advisory or (especially if Sanitarium was involved) liaison capacity.

How many papers, that this article is attempting to use to chart his career, is Ashton actually the primary author on? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 10:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

0. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

On closer examination, Ashton is not the primary author of a single one of the papers cited for "Ashton has published multiple papers on topics including soy milk,[5][15][16][6][17][18] maca,[19] and wheat.[20]" Therefore not only is the claim WP:Synthesis, but it clearly exaggerates Adhton's involvement. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 10:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep, the whole paragraph is a triple whammy: undue, synthesis and OR. I note that this is a BLP article and that poorly sourced material should be removed at once. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

He is still an author. Australian academics do not put purely liaison staff on their publications. There seems to be an attempt here to discredit Ashton's legitimate work because of concerns about his somewhat stranger ideas. What this article needs is a balanced overall view. -- 202.124.74.2 (talk) 11:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

There is not about discrediting anything. It is policy that Synthesis, original research and undue material can not be inserted into articles. Especially something that fufills all 3 at once. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, he wasn't even "an author" of the University of Wollongong/Sanitarium material -- just one more person that the university mentioned in a PR release. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 12:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

In fact he is a coauthor with his Woolongong colleagues -- see e.g. Kurniati, A., Button, P.D., Kasapis, S., Ashton, J.F., Pepler, T. & Ginn, P. (2011): Development of a state diagram for use in predicting physical functionality of sucrose-based syrups (In “Tackling Tomorrow Today” – 44th Annual AIFST Convention, Sydney, July 10-13, pp. 46) and Yang, N., Kasapis, S., Ashton, J.F., Pepler, T. & Ginn, P (2011): Investigating the phase morphology of whey protein and wheat starch binary mixtures as a function of processing conditions. (In “Tackling Tomorrow Today” – 44th Annual AIFST Convention, Sydney, July 10-13, pp. 55) -- 202.124.75.46 (talk) 12:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm seeing little, if any overlap (other than Aston himself) with "Dr Stuart K Johnson, Prof Linda C Tapsell, Prof William E Price, A/Prof John F Ashton"[26] Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 12:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be referring to the RMIT stuff mentioned before Wollongong. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 12:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes

I am likely to side with IP 202 on any more formal methods of consensus-seeking. I am mostly letting the other editors go for now to see what they wind up with among themselves. WP:NPOV: "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased." Improve, preserve, build. JJB 18:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

1. Please don't insert sections out of chronological order -- it is disruptive.
2. You have presented no evidence whatsoever to support your contention that this material is noteworthy. Argument by assertion is very poor argumentation indeed.
3. We routinely remove material from Wikipedia articles because it lacks third party sourcing to demonstrate noteworthiness (and is not needed to flesh out details of a matter brought up by third parties). If we included everything contained in primary and/or affiliated sources, articles would be extremely large, extremely incoherent and extremely uninteresting/uninformative.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The Seventh Millennium

There likewise appears to be no substantive WP:RS coverage of this book, just (apparent) bare mentions in a fringe magazine and a Publisher's Weekly list, and a Yahoo groups review by Groves. I would therefore suggest it be removed. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 08:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Creationism

In the last 24 hours, the section on Creationism has rapidly drifted to become the start of an encyclopedia article about "The Anti-Creationist Viewpoint".  For example, there is a lengthy quote disparaging the careers of 49 of the 50 article-writers for Ashton's book, but Ashton is not mentioned.  This suggests, for starters, that the title of this section be changed, because this is an article about John F. Ashton, not about Creationism.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The previous version of the section was fatally flawed in that (i) it suggested a false equivalence between the brief, superficial and non-prominently authored ASA review and Groves' far longer, in-depth and prominent viewpoint (see WP:DUE & #UNDUE weighting to the reviews. above) (ii) It also took a small snippet of Groves' conclusion out of context. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The book is ALL about these "people"

You're quite right. It is a little bewildering. Over half of the section is devoted to a lengthy quote bashing people unrelated to Ashton. DrPhen (talk) 03:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

"Unrelated to Ashton"? (i) They are the very people whose testimonies Ashton's book anthologises. (ii) Their prima scriptura rejection, as scientists of overwhelming scientific evidence, would appear identical to Aston's own views. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks but I was having such fun watching that pontoon boat turn entirely upside-down! Wanted to see how long they would stay bobbing up and down in their own devices. The whole problem would be solved if we simply deleted all content about Ashton and replaced it with scientifically neutral text, and then moved the article to "criticism of nonevolution". We are already 50% of the way there from the article's greatest length. JJB 03:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

JJB makes a very good point here. I think it's not appropriate to include an extensive digression on each of Ashton's colaborator's flaws. Just as it's not appropriate to include a discourse on each author's claims. Instead we should be focusing on what reliable, mainstream secondary sources say about this text. --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I concur 500% (ha ha!) with this, and that's all I meant with this earlier comment. Basically, I assert only that it is not necessary to produce long litanies of criticisms of other people than Ashton on Ashton's article. DrPhen (talk) 04:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Please note: the book In Six Days is ALL about the testimonies "of other people than Ashton". Therefore it is unreasonable to expect any conclusion about this book not to be about the testimonies of these people. As this book appears to be Ashton's most prominent (and arguably sole prominent) contribution on Creationism and Groves' is the longest, most in-depth and most prominent review of this work, it is not unreasonable that it gets prominent mention. If somebody thinks they can give a better summary of Groves' skewering of it than the (in-context) quote of his own conclusion, they are welcome to try (but any whitewashing or trivialisation of it will be viewed very dimly). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Young earth creationism

It seems to me ridiculous if we cannot find a RS for the very basic claim that Ashton is a YEC. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

We do in fact have a third-party source, quoting Ashton in In Six Days explicitly stating, in so many words, that he is a YEC.[27] Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

That is indeed a better source — thanks for finding it. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I think this is something that Kurt Wise said, not John F. Ashton.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is. But as this article is not about Kurt Wise, it makes no sense to attempt to turn the attention to him. It further makes no sense to try and pretend that it isn't BLATANTLY OBVIOUS that Ashton is a YEC, and disrupt the article to immediately erase this point whenever a flaw in the sourcing is found. The problem appears to be that no third party (creationist, anti-creationist or other) appears to be even remotely interested in Ashton's creationist views. So we are left with Ashton's own (occasional) expressions of them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Hrafn brought something to my earlier attention this morning and I would like to pose it here for further recrimination and debate. It seems to me that, while we CAN verify that Dr. Ashton is a creationist by creed, he is not especially notable for it. If that's the case, I respectfully propose the elimination of a separation section for his creationist views here, and instead simply identify him -- with proper sourcing, of course! -- as a creationist somewhere in the general information section. It doesn't seem to be necessary to have a seprate section for it if Ashton's contributions to creationism (as a... "science"? a field? what do you call it?!) are so unnotable that the only reliable source on them is a review of a book that does not discuss him and his views directly. DrPhen (talk) 06:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I think quite a bit of the problem is that this single book is probably more famous than Ashton is (let alone what his own personal creationist views are). That makes an article that is both WP:DUE and is particularly coherent rather difficult -- particularly given the complete lack of secondary sources on his scientific career (and the fact that his book on chocolate does not appear to be particularly closely related to his scientific research). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• A point that I tagged on the article, but forgot to bring up here -- I don't think it is accurate to state "Ashton is known for writing anthologies on faith-related subjects including creation science." In Six Days appears to be the only book that has received any substantive attention. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

would a reword make it more acceptable, Hrafn? Something like, "Ashton is principally known for writing 'In Six Days', an anthology on faith-related subjects including creation science"? Someone can be famous for a single work, and I agree that making that one work plural is misleading. DrPhen (talk) 15:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The ASA review

I just noticed something odd about this review. The reviewer, Karkalits, is a geologist. However he makes no mention whatsoever of the claims the contributors make in support of a young Earth (surely his area of expertise), but restricts himself purely to making vague and inexpert positive comments about their anti-evolution claims. This cannot help but undermine any scholarly credibility the review lays claim to. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

AOAC

Given the frequency with which statements in sources are being exaggerated within this article, and the fact that I have no access to the sources, I am requesting quotes from the AOAC sources to WP:Verify that they actually support the claims attributed to them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 09:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I can maybe get a hold of one. I think it's mostly just a small undue detail though. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I found the IUPAC one online, and added a quote, but it's a pretty minor detail (he's not even a co-author on the study). I haven't had as much luck finding the other one. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The article text gives the impression that this was some major involvement in major international projects. It seems from the above (thanks IRWolfie & David), that it was a fairly minor contribution to a couple of single-paper-projects. This would appear to be more of #Is any of this noteworthy?. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Food Australia

I am growing concerned about how much of this article is becoming cited to the 'potted biography' included with the announcement in this publication that he was made an RACI Fellow. Such potted biographies don't always have thorough editorial vetting. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 09:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I would further point out that it is highly unusual for a mere 'research scientist' (not a lecturer or professor) lacking a relevant PhD to act as a supervisor for (multiple) doctoral students. I would therefore suggest that this claim requires a better source than a mere 'potted biograpgy' of questionable editorial oversight. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 08:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

It is my suspicion that this 'potted biography' may in fact have been written by Ashton himself, as:

1. This is what happened with my father, when he was made a fellow of his profession's institute (I remember this, because I helped him put it into electronic form for submission), and
2. A search that I did of the "CSR Chemicals Prize" turned it up repeatedly in recipients' CVs, but never in sources discussing third parties.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

new BLP problem

Two editors recently agreed that a quote should be attributed to Ashton.  I looked at the source and the quote was made by Kurt Wise.  I pitched in and restored a semblance of order to the article.  My thanks, from one of the two, was an assertion of WP:DE violation, complete with bold and BOLD CAPS enhancements.  Now a new "source", "Unwrapping the Pharaohs", has been added to reference Ashton's connection with YEC.  I've just finished looking at page 6 here.  Page 6 does not say anything about "young earth creation", nor does the Amazon search find these words anywhere in the book.  Examining page 6, it is a page about Egyptian dynasties.  It mentions boats.  Checking back on the article, I see that the "Pharaoh" reference is already gone, replaced by a bare URL reference which is the preface to In Six Days, which also does not cite YEC.  Unscintillating (talk) 09:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

No BLP problem on this point

• Unwrapping The Pharaohs: How Egyptian Archaeology Confirms The Biblical Timeline explicitly states that the "biblical timeline" he is confirming is one that places creation within the last few thousand years (I can look up the exact figure quoted if need be) i.e. a young Earth.
• The preface to In Six Days explicitly states that this anthology was promoting a young Earth view.

I would suggest that attempting to claim that we do not know that Ashton is a YEC is decidedly WP:POINT, aggravated by ignoring all the other myriad sourcing flaws to concentrate solely on a single blatantly obvious point. (Parenthetically, I would further point out that Ashton's well-documented involvement in the Seventh Day Adventist church, and church-owned company is no coincidence, that church is intimately tied to YEC.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 09:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

So let's add "decidedly WP:POINT" to the previous WP:DE assertion.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is a quote in which an editor supports WP:BURDEN, from User talk:Hrafn/Archive11#"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material"

...what part of "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" do you fail to comprehend? YOU restored the material, therefore the burden of evidence is on YOU!...Hrafn...17:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Unscintillating (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

And here's a quote of where I MET THE FRACKING BURDEN!

*Unwrapping The Pharaohs: How Egyptian Archaeology Confirms The Biblical Timeline explicitly states that the "biblical timeline" he is confirming is one that places creation within the last few thousand years (I can look up the exact figure quoted if need be) i.e. a young Earth.

• The preface to In Six Days explicitly states that this anthology was promoting a young Earth view.

To this I would further add the following quote, which I earlier removed from the article as simply repeating the fact that Ashton is a YEC:

"...I am convinced that a literal understanding of the Genesis account of creation is the most reasonable explanation out of all the current theories of how we came to be here." Ashton, In Six Days, vi.

I call WP:DEADHORSE on Unscintillating's ludicrous contention that Ashton's young Earth creationism is somehow under (any) doubt. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Notability

• I would further point out that any attempt to weaken the connection between Ashton & YEC further weakens the relevance of his anthology to his own notability. If it is an anthology, by other people, of views that he doesn't even share, who would actually care that he is its editor? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 10:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Hrafn, it's not so much that Ashton is not a YEC (I firmly believe that he is and the sourcing supporting that claim is intenous at worst) but that he is not notable as a creationist. There were probably a lot of people throughout history who could be described as creationist but if he has done nothing within creationism or for creationism then all it deserves is a line mention rather than an entire section about it (since, apparently, there is nothing to put in the section except of a discussion on OTHER people, which is weird for a biography! You wouldn't insert a lengthy description of Abraham Lincoln on the Doris Kearns Goodwin article or a long summary of the history of the United States in the Arthur Schlesinger article, would you!?!) DrPhen (talk) 15:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's what several people argued in the AfD — that as the work of other people, "In Six Days" didn't count towards Ahston's notability. But here we are, the article has survived AfD, and either we excise these books completely from the article or we discuss the work of other people, because that's what they are. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I am beginning to suspect that this article perhaps should have been deleted or at least significantly pared down and refactored. Earlier, the sections was fully fleshed out and reasonably detailed: here is one example of the earlier versions of the article here. I feel that breaking it up into little sections like it is now has actually weakened this article's notability since it provides undue amount of space to things that are apparently irrelevent (creationism) that either should be placed into the lead, in another section (like the old version's 'PHILOSOPHY' section), etc. DrPhen (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• I would not claim that Ashton is notably-a-creationist. I would probably however claim that he is more notable as a creationist than he is as a food scientist or academic. He is probably marginally more notable as an advocate-of-the-health-benefits-of-chocolate than either, but even then, meh! Yes, the article should have been deleted -- but as it wasn't we're stuck finding something to say about him in the mean time. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

DrPhen, what would you say is the "core" of his notability? In my opinion his is more notable for his work as a creationism advocate than as a food-scietist. His creationism books have been the subject of more scrutiny reliable sources than his texts on food-science. --Salimfadhley (talk)

Salim -- you say that he is more notable for his work as a creationism advocate than as a food scientist, but frankly that just make things *worse* for the article, because his contributions to creationism are barely discussed in this article. All we really have is a long quote from a review that is more focused on discussing creaitonism and the works of 49 other people and does not even mention Ashton by name. If the food science connection is even more pathetic than that, then that means that, of the three things listed on the first paragraph of the article the only thing that is passable as a notability marker is his chocolate thing.

I have a proposal then. We should have just 3 sections. One is a general overview of his life, where he got his degree, etc. Then we should have a paragraph on his philosophy, where we briefly list and source his creationist views, the seeing the future thing, and the "thoroughgoing neo-Luddism" book. Then we should have a paragraph about his chocolate thing. WE can keep a list of books / bibliography. DrPhen (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I would point out that "the seeing the future thing" is even more non-notable than either the creationism or food-science things -- the sourcing is so bad that it really really shouldn't be in there at all, even if we are desperate (see #The Seventh Millennium above). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. We can prune that out now, actually. But what do you think of my condensation idea? The way the article set up now, it makes it seem as if there are several areas of notability core, and I feel that by reformatting it will become clearer whether or not Ashton is notable.DrPhen (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm okay with condensing it, but would argue that the list-of-names & the ASA review (see #The ASA review above) are even more in need of pruning than the Groves material. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk

Good call! I was hesitant to do anything of that nature without consulting you or one of the other more seasoned contributors here, so I focused my work only on adding a new infobox derived from another professor, Bill Ayers's page and rearranging it as I described here. But I definitely concur 100% with the repletion you just made earlier. DrPhen (talk) 04:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

^(P) 04:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

as far as the deletion thing, I found this link WP:Deletion Review, which is a program that might let us have the deletion debate again. I feel that we should keep this idea in reserve in case the article is still unnotable. Normally I wouldn't not be such a deletion Nazi about this but I feel that when the article is about a real, living person it's important to stay far away from false or unverified information about them. DrPhen (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

We don't need to go through deletion review — we need only wait a month or two from the previous AfD and nominate it again. But the last AfD was a mess and I'd be hesitant to nominate it again unless I had some reason to believe that the same thing wouldn't happen again the same way. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Your apprehension is noted but on the deletion review page is said that we can even communicate with the closing administrator for a reconsideral of her decision. But I actually don't want to delete this article until we can't have fixed the article after another weeks or though. DrPhen (talk) 00:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• A 'reconsideration' by the closing admin is essentially just a second look at the AfD to see if they misinterpreted it. Our problem isn't the admin's interpretation, but rather that the AfD is a complete shambles. We've also conducted a considerable degree of scrutiny of the sourcing, and a less harried evaluation of notability since the AfD. The results of this (and further scrutiny) really need to be built into a new AfD before a (new) closing admin will be put into a position where a 'delete' close becomes reasonable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

thanks for the Clarification! I guess my only point of confusion is that I don't really understand what is meant by "the AfD is a complete shambles". Are you saying it was conducted improperly in some way? Because I feel if there was some kind of technical error then that seems to be a prime candidate for reconsideration then. I tried to reread it after it was closed since I was one of the last contributationers to it but I found it a little hard to understand, probably because I haven't been editing very long. But I didn't see any obvious technical difficulties although there were likely some that a more experienced editor would have spotted. DrPhen (talk) 04:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm stating that it was sufficiently long, complicated and messy that it would be an act of foolhardy heroism on any admin's part to attempt to assign a clear WP:CONSENSUS to it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I take some responsibility for the AFD's failure. I foolishly felt compelled to respond to every objection no matter how self-evidently bogus. It would be better if we simply began the AFD, stated our positions and then trusted that the admins know what they are doing. A good source and a bad argument will speak for itself. --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The AFD was no failure: it is clear there is still no consensus about notability, and so the close was correct. Regarding the AFD as a failure or preemptively arguing for DRV or a second AFD so quickly, when the proper close would be "still no consensus", belies all the alleged improvement work you've done to this article. (And if Salim had responded to every objection, I don't know why Salim so often asked to handle only 2 objections instead of 65.) Further, during AFD I concentrated very hard on independent sources. There are all kinds of self-published and connected sources such as contributors and SDA sources that I didn't include because we were establishing notability, that can now be included in accord with SPS and other policies. (I am holding off because waiting for a less hostile baseline, viz., what would consensus be if I weren't pursuing appropriate inclusionism? If necessary to say to stay in the loop, yes, I disagree strongly with many recent changes and am only allowing them to simplify a consensus-building procedure.) Accordingly, further deletionist activity would be very hard to consider as being in other than bad faith at this time. JJB 16:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

No JJB, "during AfD" you "concentrated very hard on" throwing as much as you could at the wall, in the hope that some of it would stick long enough to give the superficial impression of notability. We are now discovering that most of those sources were exaggerated, and that most of the material was extrapolation of bare mentions. The current sourcing is very marginal, I would suggest that we don't want to add in further poor sourcing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 18:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, I didn't mean to stir up an argument amongst ourselves here. I was merely inquiring as to the deletion process on Wikipedia in case it turns out that the information contained in this article cannot be salvaged with adequate reliable sources about the subject. I am not planning to take any actions re: deletion until very far into the future, and only if we all agree that it's the best option. Please don't take this as a threat or an assertion that I was planning to do anything against this article or all of the hard work that you guys have put into this without the approval of the other editors here, only as an inquiry from a less-experienced editor to gain information about how things work around here. DrPhen (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Not talking about you DrPhen. The fact is there is no consensus about notability and certain other editors do not appear to be building toward such a consensus by, e.g., defeating the arguments made during AFD directly. Instead there appears to me to be some incompletely sincere work going on. Since I am not currently repeating those AFD arguments as it seemed to have little effect to bridge the gap with these editors during AFD, there is not as much discussion about those arguments now. But they are still valid IMHO and I am throwing in two cents now and then to ensure nobody believes that new consensus can be formed without reference to these policy-based arguments. I will contribute as occasions warrant. JJB 19:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

JJB -- I think all of us here are working hard and sincerely to construct a great article and ensure that all of the information here is factual. I didn't mean to dredge up the AFD which I am now realizing has some hurt feelings affiliated therein, and I think it would probably be better if I stayed away from such matters in the future. However, I think that the real problem we have here isn't policy per se but the fact that so many of the claims included in this article are derived from somewhat hard to understand linkages drawn from sources that don't seem to really be either reliable or about Ashton. The old creationism section that I folded into the 'Views' section was dominated by a review by Colin Groves that was entirely about the subjects of Ashton's book without a single mention of Ashton himself! As I said before, that would be like putting a lengthy biography of Abraham Lincoln in the Doris Kearns Goodwin article! My concern right now is finding sources that are about or reference Ashton directly, without us having to draw inferences and derive conclusions unsupportable by the sources themselves. And because Ashton is a real, living person, I think it's crucial that any content about him, especially his personal life or his views/career, that is not verifiable be immediately and without all undue haste, be removed at once. DrPhen (talk) 23:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

JJB, What sources are you referring to? Since much of his notable work is obviously motivated by (and advocating for) SDA doctrine, it would be great to have a choice of strong sources for his level of prominence within SDA. (I personally observe his books are very high on the list SDA members cite to defend their views against science, but I'm not familiar with whatever internal materials that might be used to verify that.) Cesiumfrog (talk) 22:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

we're also not here (in this article) to teach the reader the scientific facts of life

my edit summary got cut off! --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The next thing that has to go is the bloated quote by Colin Groves. --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

.

—David Eppstein (talk) 02:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually we do aim to "teach the reader the scientific facts of life". Wikipedia strives to be a serious encyclopedia and that means giving weight to the scientific mainstream. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Not in this article, we don't. This article is supposed to be about Ashton and his ideas; it's not about the age of the universe or the theory of evolution. It suffices for us to say that his ideas are at odds with the scientific consensus—it is inappropriate for us to explain to the reader how, or why, that is. The reader is welcome to go read about evolution, etc., if he so wishes. The article should present Ashton's ideas fairly, with a mere mention that they are outside the mainstream; anything else is a violation of our policies (and in piss-poor taste)! --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it would violated FRINGE, not to mention not educate our readers on the context of his views, to not explain what the consensus is. Yobol (talk) 02:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'm glad this has come up here. We have recently had a discussion on Talk:Ken Ham#Evolution Denialist but the discussion has stalled before a consensus could be reached. The second sentence of Ken Ham's lead paragraph currently reads "He is an advocate for a young Earth and a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis, an evolution denialist viewpoint that is unsupported by scientific evidence." Perhaps some folks here can go and join the discussion at that article's talk page. StAnselm (talk) 02:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Publications list

Grotesquely long list obviously needs to be either trimmed to a very short list, or removed entirely. (Converting some of it into inline citations for relevant and warranted parts of the main text would be fine.) Would anybody like to do this so I don't have to? Cesiumfrog (talk) 05:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Is there a link to the wikipedia formatting for that? I wouldn't mind doing it but I want a way to double check the converting to inline citations part so I don't bungle it! DrPhen (talk) 06:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Who cares? Keep the current formatting (minus the leading asterisk bullet), just wrap it in "ref" tags and relocate it wherever you find appropriate. Cesiumfrog (talk) 06:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I snipped it in half. Far too long. It still is, I would suggest someone picks his most notable 3 or 4 books. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

In the meantime I have a tangential question: Ashton has done a series of books on the "in 6 days" theme (employing batteries of apparent experts although I hear his next one will be his own views), but what is the proper title of the last one? Amazon says The Big Argument: Twenty-Four Scholars Explore How Science, Archaelogy, and Philosophy Have Proven the Existence of God, but their cover image instead says The Big Argument: Twenty-Four Scholars Explore How Science, Archaelogy, and Philosophy Haven't Disproved God. [give or take spelling of archaeology] Anyone familiar with science philosophy and new atheism debates should recognise a world of difference between proof and absence of disproof. Incidentally, the book also attributes Ashton as an honourary associate at U.Syd. too (he really has an amazing number of those). Cesiumfrog (talk) 02:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I would tend to trust the cover art over Amazon's listing. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Google hits seem to favour the other by a mere factor of two. Seems odd, such an overlookable yet meaning-potent distinction, and so widespread. Has this happened deliberately, subconsciously, or was there another version? Cesiumfrog (talk) 03:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

section naming

I renamed the section on his young-earth creationism advocacy and general luddism as "fringe views". It was reverted to "views", which I think is inaccurately nonspecific. Comments? Cesiumfrog (talk) 06:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

They certainly are the type of views described in WP:FRINGE, but I think calling them "fringe" in the section title may be too much editorialization. We should definitely point out that they are counter to scientific consensus but I think the text is adequate for that, we don't need to do it in the titles as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Views section: anti-fluoridation groups are not reliable sources.

Anti-fluoridation groups are not reliable sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing in Water fluoridation controversy that suggests that this is the case. StAnselm (talk) 10:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you serious? How about there is no scientific evidence for danger but anti-flouridation groups act as if there is and the frequent conspiracy theories whilst they oppose proven public health measures, i.e they are WP:FRINGE. [28]. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I am deadly serious. There is nothing in Water fluoridation controversy that suggests that this is the case. StAnselm (talk) 21:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

IRWolfie -- can we use the anti-fluoridation groups as reliable sources solely for the purpose of recounting their own views, without stating or implying that they are correct? DrPhen (talk) 23:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Except that it isn't being used for "recounting their own views". It's being used as the (main) source for a list of concerns of a third party that goes well beyond fluoridation. Therefore it goes well beyond what WP:ABOUTSELF allows. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I see you're point, I hadn't noticed that that source was being used that way. I agree then -- it can't be used for that purpose, because of the general lack of scientific reliability here. My main concern is that the article itself linked (in citation 21 -- which I think is what we're talking about) is written by John Ashton himself. Wouldn't that aspect make it fall under WP:ABOUTSELF, since Ashton is not considered a 3rd party when speaking of his own views? DrPhen (talk) 04:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused as to what you're talking about here. Citation 21 is a review by Bill Wilson for the ISFR (an unreliable source) about Ashton's book (a third party). What is being cited is not "written by John Ashton himself." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It's my fault. I was intending to look at Citation 21 but I must have clicked on Citation 22 instead. You're right about citation 21. DrPhen (talk) 05:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Excessive links

The sentence which reads This book discusses electromagnetic fields, radiation poisoning, microwaves, gasoline, sunscreen, food additives, polyunsaturated fats, chlorine, fluoridated water, aluminum, sound pollution, artificial light, and sick building syndrome has an excessive amount of links. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I assume you mean an excessive number of examples. StAnselm (talk) 10:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Both. Seriously, 13 linked examples in a row. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

See WP:OVERLINK. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 11:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

We should focus on the topics which reliable secondary sources have mentioned that the book covers. To simply list out section summaries from the book itself is WP:OR. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

That last sentence is so monumentally daft that it made me laugh out loud, really. We need to treasure remarks like that. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

And yet it is still OR and undue. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, whatever things are listed should be linked, in this case. The reader may well be asking herself, "What's so controversial about that?" And we have a number of specific articles that talk about these things, like electromagnetic radiation and health and potential health risks of sunscreen. And all the other articles seem to have comprehensive sections on "health" or "safety". StAnselm (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

"whatever things are listed should be linked" = WP:OVERLINKing, so no, they should not (all) be. Specifically "microwaves, gasoline, sunscreen, ... chlorine, ... aluminum" are clearly "plain English words" which we should avoid linking. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we should definitely keep the sick building syndrome and sound pollution among others though. They are esoteric enough to demand further elucidation from readers if encountered out of context like that. My goal though is tomorrow to go through the referenced source and ensure if Ashton actually discusses each individual item listed thereafter and. DrPhen (talk) 04:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we should keep electromagnetic fields, fluoridation and sunscreen, since they have specific articles about the controversies surrounding them. StAnselm (talk) 05:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but the article shouldn't pretend there is a scientific controversy when there isn't one. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Linking to an article doesn't really constitute "pretend[ing] there is a scientific controversy". I know that the EMF and fluoridation things are pseudoscience at best but the fact is that there is a (manufactured, silly) controversy about them and they have articles that should be mentioned, to give readers the opportunity to understand the claims by describing them, *without* presenting them as true or valid. DrPhen (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Third party sourcing on 'food research'

Do we have any substantive third party sourcing (i.e. not from papers Ashton cowrote, his collaborators, his universities or his church) that discuss his food research, except (as a passing mention) in the context of his chocolate books (which don't appear to be based on any original scientific research he himself has published)? If not, then I'd strongly recommend giving his chocolate advocacy its own section and moving a brief mention of his paid employment as a food scientist into the 'Biography' section. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I'm opposed to the recent wholesale deletion of sourced material which is of interest to Australian readers. Hrafn seems far to quick to delete material, even sourced material, on grounds that I believe to be invalid. -- 202.124.73.17 (talk) 12:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

If it is of interest then there will be independent reliable sources discussing his connection more directly and explicitly. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

"For the record"

1. I tagged the problematical material.
2. I explained the reasons I thought it was problematical here on talk.
3. Nobody responded to defend the material.
4. Somebody removed the tags without (as far as I can see) giving a valid reason -- and certainly no explanation on talk.
5. So I removed the offending content.

No Two-two, this is NOT being "far to quick to delete material", particularly POORLY SOURCED material. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You were right to do so. In a biography, it's doubly important not to leave unsourced info up for too long. DrPhen (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Especially one as contentious as this one seems to be. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I fail to grasp why he is so contentious, actually. Based on my reading, he's not extremely prominent in any of the fields he is involved in and he doesn't really done anything especially interesting or controversial in his career. I understand that he is a contentious figure but I don't really understand why there's so much rancor over him here. I have been studying the other discussions under this exemplar and they seem a little edgy and rancorous to me and it really doesn't seem warranted. DrPhen (talk) 01:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest that much of the rancour is due to disputes over efforts to make Ashton appear more notable, and less WP:FRINGE (YEC, neo-luddism, alternate Egyptology chronologies, precognition, etc), than he really is. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

academia

The following was deleted (diff) from the biography section by Hrafn on the argument that it gives undue weight to something or is not notable. In the same edit, Hrafn added about 20 paragraphs of cruft to the article. (None of the rationale even hint at why, so I'm inclined to put her/his edit down to rash clumsiness.)

In academia, Ashton has been named an Adjunct Professor at RMIT University, [4][5] and an Adjunt Associate Professor at Victoria University, [6][7] an Honourary Associate at University of Sydney, [8] was a principal food research scientist at the University of Newcastle,[9] and has also had academic supervisory roles at both Deakin University and University of Wollongong. [10]

We went through this on the AfD. I would think that if someone has any title of professor (noting that in Australia unlike northamererica this is about the highest position in acadmemia -- even just associate is very selective) then that is automatically notable enough to include in the lead, let alone in the biography section. I think that paragraph definitely belongs in the biography section (since it provides an extremely concise outline of his academic career, and is intrinsically far more notable than other biographical details like his number of children, and frankly to have been acknowledged at such a span of institutions is hardly insignificant). Cesiumfrog (talk) 00:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Not this nonsense again. "Professor" may be a high position but "adjunct professor" is very much not. And we need sources whose independence from the subject we can be confident in. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you seriously disputing whether he had those positions? (I thought the general rule was that for basic biographical details, affiliated sources are fine unless there is some plausible reason for doubt. Besides, for example, it would be bad for a publisher's reputation if they did not verify the credentials they list partially to advertise their books, so at least some of the sourcing is already independent. Another was the university itself - which also conveniently clarified just precisely what they meant by "adjunct" in relation to the other positions they employ.)

Or do you think that a biography article (especially a biography section) should not summarise a persons career as a matter of course (with at least a brief list of where and what their academic positions were)? (It's a bit like the date of birth - even if the fact wasn't notable in and of itself, if the topic is notable enough for its own encyclopedia then it is definitely one of the facts about the topic which you would expect to be provided with.)Cesiumfrog (talk) 02:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

An "Adjunct Professor" is NOT a "Professor"

No Cesiumfrog, I am "seriously disputing" your ludicrous claim that "this is about the highest position in acadmemia".

1. A "professor" is a (generally well-)paid position, requiring a considerable commitment on the part of the university. An "adjunct professor" is an unpaid position, requiring little or no commitment.
   • As an unpaid position, they are NOT part of his "career".
2. A professor is a senior member of a university department, playing a considerable role in its oversight and management. An adjunct professor has no such role.
3. In Ashton's case, the role does not even appear to warrant a permanent office or telephone number.
4. The positions are so non-prominent that nobody unassociated with Ashton considers them even worth mentioning. If they don't then why should we?

Cesiumfrog: you have presented no evidence whatsoever that the position of "Adjunct Professor" has any prominence whatsoever. You are merely assuming some (unproven) equivalence with a (normal-as-in-paid) professor, based on nothing but the name itself. Until you do present some evidence, I see no reason to entertain these claims.

On the "supervisory" claim, the only confirmation we have is a 'potted bio' for his fellowship announcement (almost certainly submitted by Ashton himself, see #Food Australia above). The claim that a mere researcher (as opposed to a lecturer or real-as-in-paid-professor) lacking even a relevant PhD would hold "academic supervisory roles" (itself a vague-to-the-point-of-misleading characterisation) is an extraordinary claim, and therefore WP:REDFLAG applies. The "Honorary Associate" title would appear to be meaningless puffery (an "Associate" is a fairly loose term, and an "Honorary" one even more so), and bookjacket blurbs are generally not considered reliable sources -- as they are simple advertising, and have a long reputation for misrepresentation and error. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

An adjunct professor, in Australia, is a higher rank than "professor" is in the USA. And calling a FRACI a "mere researcher" is just lunacy. Hrafn obviously has no understanding of how Australian academia works; researchers in industry (often better-paid than their University counterparts) are often "double-hatted" as unpaid adjuncts within a university, at a level depending on their prominence; this is indeed part of their career, and universities are grateful for the way such adjuncts raise the profile of the institution. Until their totally unjustified removal, we had references showing that Ashton's adjunct positions related to collaborative research, joint grants, and supervision of PhD students: these are all academic activities. I strongly reject Hrafn's uninformed arguments; I strongly support Cesiumfrog; and I call for the immediate return of the deleted material. -- 202.124.75.49 (talk) 06:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

[Citation needed]. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The citation was previously given, but removed by Hrafn. -- 202.124.72.31 (talk) 08:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

1. Again I point out that we have been presented no evidence whatsoever that "An adjunct professor, in Australia, is a higher rank than 'professor' is in the USA" and all evidence appears to be to the contrary! I am getting completely brassed off by this never-ending argument by assertion.
   • This again appears to be an "extraordinary claim", so per WP:REDFLAG I demand an "exceptional source" for it!
2. Ashton's only employment position within academia has been listed as "research scientist" NOT lecturer, real-as-in-paid-professor, or any other senior academic position, so describing him as a "mere researcher" would not appear to be "lunacy".
3. "Until their totally [justified] removal" -- we had a bunch of exaggeration of bare mention by affiliated parties, and an uncorroborated claim, from a potted biography that Ashton almost certainly wrote himself, of "supervision of PhD students".

Cesiumfrog & Two-two -- kindly cease and desist making unsubstantiated assertions. If you can't back it up with WP:Verifiable facts, then please don't say it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

This source describes Australian academic ranks, but makes no mention of 'Adjunct Professors', suggesting that they have no place within the formal hierarchy. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hrafn, that is a somewhat silly comment. We have already established that adjunct positions are unpaid visiting positions, therefore they don't appear on a list of paid ranks (being unpaid doesn't make them "not real," though). In fact, the label "adjunct lecturer" or "adjunct professor" includes within it the level of paid rank ("lecturer" or "professor") that the adjunct position is considered to be equivalent to ("adjunct" is an adjective modifying the noun: see [29] for an example). As the article professor makes clear, a "full professor" in the US is equivalent to a "lecturer" or "senior lecturer" in Australia, while an Australian professor is roughly equivalent to a US head of department or named chair. One of the many unjustified deletions from this article was a source from RMIT (to which Ashton was attached) explaining clearly how they used the term "adjunct professor" ("An Adjunct Professor is recognised as a person of eminence in a profession or industry"). I presume that they consider a FRACI to meet that criterion. At QUT (a university similar to RMIT), an appointment as adjunct professor "is designed to enrich QUT's educational program by involving distinguished and talented professionals and academics in teaching and research activities. Eligible adjunct professors would expect to have doctoral qualifications or equivalent accreditation or standing." [30] -- 202.124.72.31 (talk) 08:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

As to supervision of PhD students, a quick Google search finds several PhD theses acknowledging Ashton's guidance. -- 202.124.72.31 (talk) 08:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

E.g. [31], [32], [33]. -- 202.124.72.31 (talk) 08:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

And, Hrafn, please refrain from phrases like "almost certainly submitted by Ashton himself" unless you have verifiable sources for the allegation. -- 202.124.72.31 (talk) 08:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

1. QUT's standard for Adjunct Professor of mere "doctoral qualifications or equivalent accreditation or standing" would appear to be well below that of a normal-as-in-paid professor.
2. No Two-two, I will not "refrain from phrases like 'almost certainly submitted by Ashton himself'" as it appears entirely probable (per #Food Australia above) that Ashton wrote the potted biography himself.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 08:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)