Talk:Bernard d'Abrera

message: Interestingly enough, Hill House, Publishers do not mention Bernard d'Abrera in their "About Us" section. In fact, they say, "Hill House, Publishers was started in 1983. Peter Schneider, a publicist for Doubleday Publishers at the time, made the decision that life wasn't quite insane enough for him, and so he decided to become a small press publisher while keeping his day job." Are there two Hill House Publishers? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 18:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, I found the other one. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 18:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: There was also one that published pictures of Victorian homes or something similar. I quickly ruled it out as the one I was looking for. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 19:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hill House Publishers 

message: Rather than creating a hagiography full of paeans laced with superlatives to the purported genius of the self-beatified Mr. d'Abrera, I suggest we might consider another tack. Let us include all his self-congratulatory phraseology and superlative bloviating from this self-annointed "world's greatest butterfly expert", but source this material properly and accurately as originating from his own writings or his own mouth or from the articles written by fellow creationists. Let us include several of the highly uncomplimentary reviews of his work by the scientific community. Let us include a more extensive enumeration of his copious inflammatory anti-evolution statements, which border on irresponsibility. We can also explore in fuller detail the exact nature of his relationship with the National History Museum, with WP:RS and WP:V sources, drawing on both sides of this sordid and shameful story, not just BdA's account. I suspect Mr. d'Abrera would far rather have the original vague article than a more accurate article that truely depicts him in an NPOV and well sourced manner. On the other hand, if he wants to dance, then...--Filll (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am afraid you are misunderstanding the reason I made "Mr" bold here. I did not mean it as a slur against you or your usage of the style. I have read about 4 autobiographies written by Mr. d'Abrerea, and they do read like hagiographies; sorry. And the phrase "world's greatest butterfly man" and similar superlatives come directly from d'Abrera's own self descriptions, both directly and indirectly. If you will do a bit more investigation, you will understand what I have written more clearly rather than jumping to unwarranted conclusions and inferences. I am not accusing you of wanting to boost a creationist. I am not accusing myself of wanting to boost a creationist. However, if BdA wants to have something written about him in WP which is similar to what he has written about himself repeatedly, I am suggesting we give in to his desires, and just make sure that the source of the wording is accurate. If he wants to boost himself, let's promote  him in his own words, and just source these superlative terms and phrases accurately. Clear?--Filll (talk) 16:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal  

message: I'm of the opinion that when d'Abrera starts a sentence the d should be capitalized. We do this in a few places, but in other places it's lower-case. I'm going to make that edit now, but if you disagree, hopefully you'll at least agree that we should be consistent. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 16:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That bothered me too. AFAIK first words of sentences are always capitalized.  That's American English. Is British English different? Jaque Hammer (talk) 02:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistency in capitalization 

message: I did a search and pulled out the first handful of articles that include the word "taxonomist" in their lead:
:*John Sims (taxonomist), Rudolf Schlechter, Nathaniel Lord Britton, Hermann Harms, Alfred Rehder, Martin Cheek
#The majority are from the late 18th to early 20th century. Martin Cheek is the only living example. The description may therefore be somewhat archaic.
#Without exception, they all in the field of botany (I don't know what to make of that).
#Also without exception, they all have a "standard author abbreviation" listed in List of botanists by author abbreviation listed in List of botanists by author abbreviation. (See Author citation (botany) for specifics.) This indicates that in each case the topic-author was the original discoverer of a significant number of species.
#The animal kingdom is covered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature & their International Code of Zoological Nomenclature.
#I just searched their database here, and could find no entries on d'Abrera
#Their database in turn references journals in which this taxonomic information was first published (e.g. to Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington). To the best of my knowledge, d'Abrera has never published in such.
I would conclude by suggesting that describing d'Abrera as a "taxonomist" is out of keeping with the use of that word elsewhere in Wikipedia, and that describing his books as "taxonomic text" is an exaggeration, given the lack of original taxonomic research, or significant taxonomic commentary, in them. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What wikipedia uses is not relevant, wikipedia cannot cite itself, it needs external sources. In all ways, he qualifies as a taxonomist. Standard author abbreviation is a botany only phenomenon, and not used in zoology. The lack of having described a species does not indicate that someone is NOT a taxonomist. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 05:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Zoobank is a prototype, and lacks a lot of data. I am missing for example. as is the nestor of the drosophilists, Bachli -- Kim van der Linde at venus 05:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but Wikipedia is expected to be consistent, and to apply cross-article WP:CONSENSUS in its usage. And in any case the WP:BURDEN is on those seeking to retain claims, so I don't in fact have to find "external sources" that "someone is NOT a taxonomist". "In all ways, he qualifies as a taxonomist." Please cite sources supporting this contention. So what database would you search, and does it present evidence of d'Abrera's taxonomical (as opposed to illustrative) contributions? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, wikipedia is expected to be consistent, but that does not mean that it should be consistent when it is wrong. I basically dispute your conclusion that the usage of the word taxonomist is wrong here. Your selective reading of some wikipedia pages and external sources does not constitute a reason to change this articles information. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of 'Taxonomist' in article leads

message: By the way, I'm dismayed by the extremely POV language in the DYK that went on the main page. Given that, I'm less surprised Wikipedia is seen a US liberal club. Apparently, the DYK version of the article did not have citations for those claims. I'm not surprised many see DYK as a game where any thrash goes. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're really interested in such ancient history, I'd suggest you ask User:Filll, who was the main editor during that period. It's before my time. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  DYK 

message: This section violates WP:DUE as it does not "make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant" and it "represent[s] content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." It clearly needs balancing. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's fairly normal to describe people's views on articles about those people. And of course if there are direct criticisms of those views from reliable sources, by all means add them. Sumbuddi (talk) 12:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also "fairly normal", when those views are WP:FRINGE, not to state them without providing the majority academic view as context. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of Evolution section 

message: I would point out that http://findforms.com/single_form.php/form/307140/Notice_Other_District_Court_of_Federal_Claims_District_federal is not a WP:RS. It is merely a complaint. Such documents are not given under oath, and quite frequently contain exaggerations or inaccuracies. See this search for how WP:RSN has viewed court documents -- e.g. "A judge's final verdict/decision is a reliable primary source of fact as to the outcome of the trial. A complaint or indictment is a reliable primary source for the fact that wrongdoing has been alleged, but it is NOT a reliable source for the fact that any wrongdoing actually occurred". In any case, it does not support the full amount of the material cited to it (e.g. it makes no mention of the long list of museums cited to it). I am therefore removing these references. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's at least as reliable as a self-published source would be(slightly more so since there are consequences to misrepresentations in court) , and those are considered reliable for articles about the subject. If you think Mr. d'Abrera is lying about having taken 40,000 images or whatever, well I suggest you find another article to edit, because that's way too much bias for here. Sumbuddi (talk) 17:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Findforms document 

message: I've moved the following here, from the article. If anybody can give it context (i.e. who is Mr Blunkett, and what law is under discussion) and can demonstrate it is noteworthy to d'Abrera's 'Education and career', then it can be re-added.
HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New material lacking context 

message: I would point out that Shapiro is "an evolutionary biologist and entomologist" -- thus qualified to make an opinion, but that Dembski is not a scientist, not an entomologist, but rather is a notorious pseudoscience-peddling crank, thus completely unqualified. Wikipedia gives coverage to the expert opinions of the former, but not to the (additionally unsourced) ejaculations of the latter. Please read WP:V, WP:RS, WP:FRINGE & WP:DUE. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lucilla on Bernard  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bernard d'Abrera. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090514090656/http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/LETTOW.DABRERA081507.pdf to http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/LETTOW.DABRERA081507.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070912024601/http://www.usyd.edu.au/museums/pdfs_docs/macleay_news/cnews08.pdf to http://www.usyd.edu.au/museums/pdfs_docs/macleay_news/cnews08.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110807221057/http://peabody.research.yale.edu/jls/pdfs/2000s/2003/2003-57(1)75-DeVries.pdf to http://peabody.research.yale.edu/jls/pdfs/2000s/2003/2003-57%281%2975-DeVries.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930163030/http://www.learnaboutbutterflies.com/Bernard%20d'Abrera.htm to http://www.learnaboutbutterflies.com/Bernard%20d'Abrera.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080513001927/http://www.iscid.org/bernard-dabrera.php to http://www.iscid.org/bernard-dabrera.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Bernard d'Abrera. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726051925/http://www.sphin-sea.unibas.ch/SphinSEA/species%20pages/Gn_dabrera.htm to http://www.sphin-sea.unibas.ch/SphinSEA/species%20pages/Gn_dabrera.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110711171059/http://www.hillhouse-publishers.com/about-hill-house-publishers to http://www.hillhouse-publishers.com/about-hill-house-publishers
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.learnaboutbutterflies.com/Bernard%20d%27Abrera.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified