Talk:Walt Brown (creationist)

message: According to Brown's biography page he "Brown is a retired full colonel (Air Force), West Point graduate, and former Army ranger [sic] and paratrooper. Assignments during his 21 years in the military included: Director of Benet Research, Development, and Engineering Laboratories in Albany, New York; tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy; and Chief of Science and Technology Studies at the Air War College." Yet, being a Air Force Colonel, an Army Ranger, a Paratrooper, and a Professor within 21 years is high unlikely. For those who have the resources available a deeper look into his resume should be made to see if this is true.
The above paragraph was added to the article by an anon editor.  Perhaps there is something to this, but the talk page and not the article is where we should hash it out, and as it stands unsourced allegations do not belong in the article.  Gamaliel 07:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a feedback at TalkOrigins by someone claiming to be from Benet Laboratories saying that Brown was never the director.  Admitedly we might have a hearsay problem here in that we don't have an independent confirmation. MichaelSH 00:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Biography Controversy

message: Is an encyclopedia article really the place to refute someone's theories? This sounds pretty point-of-view to me.
: A decent article about a notable scientist (even one far outside the mainstream) should give an adequate description of the ideas that person has contributed. If those ideas are rejected by the vast majority of mainstream scientists, that should also be mentioned. I see no reason why some of the common positions from both sides shouldn't be represented in the article. OTOH, this article is needlessly hostile to Brown and his ideas. Phrases like "to those with little scientific background" and "Brown goes on to misinterpret outdated scientific literature" as well as the excessive criticism seem to be presenting a pov, rather just representing it. References to talk origins should probably be relegated to the external links section and kept to a minimum. The part about Brown rejecting both the Oort cloud and Kupier Belt (previously) should probably be cleaned up and kept, though. The objections about his debate policy could also be (carefully, neutrally) expanded into a larger secton with references to both his opponents and his replies. TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa
I agree this article is harsh towards Brown, I read his book 5 years ago, it is incredibly well researched and I would like to see this article edited and added to by someone who respects him, instead of someone who obviously detests him. Wayne  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.1.81 (talk) 06:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV?

message: This section needs less POV, as it is now, it reads like a screed against talkorigins.org JoshuaZ 23:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The 1989 and 1995 editions of Brown's book say (1989, p. 16; 1995, p. 27): "Experts have, therefore, expressed surprise that meteorites are found only in young sediments very near the earth's surface."  The "almost" may have been added by Brown in a later edition, but in those fifth and sixth editions, no such qualifier appears. Lippard (talk) 04:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  material on talkorigins.org 

message: The criticism section is weak because it only attacks a relatively tangential part of Dr. Brown's theory - the origin of comets, which even if completely falsified, does not falsify his main theory of plate tectonic movement.  Or to put it another way, if Brown's theory is truly scientifically unsound, then it should be fairly simple to present critical arguments against the main tenets of Brown's theory, rather than wasting a volley on the origin of comets.
Likewise, the reference to Kent Hovind (who may have quoted Brown, but Brown has never quoted Hovind), is a form of ad hominem to make someone look foolish by associating him with other foolish people. Since Brown has never attached himself or associated with Hovind, the Hovind reference is completely irrelevant to this article.
Cadwallader 05:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no opinion on Hovind, so I won't question that. However, it doesn't matter how tangential comets are... it is a part of his overarching critique of mainstream science and is a part of his theory, and if there are errors in it, that is relevant in order to judge the thoroughness of his main theory. (If comets have a more reasonable origin, his hydroplate theory is not necessary to explain them. Moreover the hydroplate theory may have be modified so that it does not include creating comets.) If further criticism is forth coming on the main theory, then of course comets could be summarized to make room for more notable criticism. - RoyBoy 800 02:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism Section 

message: Presently this article devotes zero paragraphs to the basic points of Dr. Brown's "Hydroplate Theory" but devotes six or seven paragraphs to criticizing a relatively minor prediction about the Oort Cloud and Kuiyper Belt (A minor one out of 100+ "predictions" in Brown's book).
Reading this article for the first time, I come away with little idea of what the Hydroplate Theory is, and might even be led to think it is primarily a theory about comets, which it is not. Since the Hydroplate Theory is Dr. Brown's main contribution to the creation science movement, and the main subject of his book, it merits a cursory overview.
The criticism section fails to point out published criticisms of Brown's main thesis.  This may be because mainstream scientific journals have not considered Brown's work, critically or otherwise.  But in creationist peer reviewed literature there have been a number of papers published criticizing Brown's theory.  It seems like that would be a good place to start with critical references.  
The criticism presently published here by RoyBoy amounts to original research.  Yes, it quotes published sources about comets and the Oort cloud, but the application of these sources to Brown's theory is original work, as no one else appears to have published such a criticism regarding Brown's prediction about the Oort Cloud.
I will leave these comments up for a week or two. If RoyBoy doesn't clean it up, I will delete the criticism section altogether and replace it with published criticisms relevant to Brown's main theory.
Now I understand that RoyBoy is a self-styled weak atheist and Dr. Brown's claims may be a pet peeve for him.  So, my challenge to RoyBoy is to do a much better job of referencing published criticisms of Brown's work, because there are some out there.  Wikipedia isn't the platform for publishing your own critiques - even though I completely agree with your critique on the origin of comets.
Cadwallader 06:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section originated from a supporter of Brown inserting POV in other articles, such as Oort cloud or Kuiper belt; so I was forced to actually address that issue directly to get them to stop. As to defining Brown's theory, I think Brown himself or someone tried, but it was removed by someone as original research or conflict of interest. I concur with your assessment of my work, though my attachment to it is merely effort based. (ie. I spent time research it, so I simply wrote it to help justify spending my time on the subject) - RoyBoy 800 02:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Moved these new sections to the bottom. - RoyBoy 800 02:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Will look into alternative links and summarizing the section soon. - RoyBoy 800 02:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I am not sure criticing Brown's work this creationist material is the way to go. Since creationism is not science, you should avoid including that material even for the purposes of criticism. Plantocal 23:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Brown is a mechanical engineer, not a physicist. As far as I can see from information contained in the article, he has no background in Geology, Geophysics, or Fluid dynamics, the fields that would provide some basis for his claims. He has never published his claims in any peer-reviewed scientific journal, so it is unsurprising that he has gotten no significant scientific attention. Most scientists have better things to do than rebut unqualified, self-published cranks. However he has not escaped criticism from the scientific community, e.g.: Hrafn42 03:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I removed strata from the criticism section; it seemed unimportant. Yeah, engineers... clever, yet get into trouble when they tackle un-linear subjects. - RoyBoy 800 04:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that Brown has not even published his major theory, hydroplate theory, in any scientific journal, not even a creationist journal.  Lippard (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Brown seems to do very little in terms of engagement with scientists or other creationists -- to the extent that this disengagement has become a significant theme of the article. He is a "hermit creationist" as it were, in a world which has always tended to give more (current and historic) attention to more flamboyant and publicity-seeking ones. HrafnTalkStalk 03:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balance 

message: I think it is telling that the only sources on Brown uncovered to date are:
*An article in the periodical of the Christian Reconstructionist Chalcedon Foundation
*That he was one of the Christian Men of Science profiled by a fellow creationist, rendered even more unreliable by the fact that this book is subtitled "Eleven Men Who Changed the World", which is ludicrously hyperbolic when applied to Brown
*Brown's online-book itself
More telling is the fact that he doesn't even warrant a passing mention in Ronald Numbers' authoritative and comprehensive The Creationists. HrafnTalkStalk 01:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, but he still meets WP:Notability. In 1993 Dr. Brown was asked to narrate a five-minute animation of his hydroplate theory for CBS television. CBS television executives had noticed the interest that the public has in Noah's Ark, and they aired a two-hour special on Noah's Ark. That program was seen by 43 million Americans and Canadians. --Goo2you (talk) 04:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, he doesn't. Your assertion of his narration, even if it was substantiated (and it isn't as yet) is nothing like sufficient to establish notability. The segment you describe was only tiny. One 5-minute slot on TV 14 years ago is not notable. There have been nearly one and a half million such 5-minute slots on that single channel alone, since that time. HrafnTalkStalk 05:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: That particular television show was best known for its promotion of a Noah's Ark hoax which exposed the credulity of its producers: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ark-hoax/jammal.html Lippard (talk) 04:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, he does. Just because you assert the contrary, doesn't make it so. WP:Notability guidelines make it clear that notability is established here. Goo2you (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What with 1/3 of andy Warhol's 15 minutes of fame, 14 years ago? Your assertion is absurd. Read WP:N#TEMP. Brown's brief flash of limelight was so fleeting ("temporary") that if you blinked you'd have missed it. HrafnTalkStalk 14:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:N#TEMP is talking about "whether, in a particular article, the names of specific individuals could be redacted without the loss of non-trivial information or necessary clarity," not about whether in your personal opinion a major television network news department's inclusion of Brown's theory in a two hour special is notable in your own POV. Goo2you (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It says nothing of the sort. It specifically states "A short burst of temporary news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute evidence of long-term notability." The fact that the special was two hours is irrelevant, when Brown's hypothesis (not a theory -- please read WP:WTA#Theory) by your own admission only received 5 minutes of coverage -- i.e. it was only 1/24 of this programme. A "short burst of coverage" in anybody's book. HrafnTalkStalk 18:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: The point is not whether it is any good or not (although in this case I think it is not so bad), but that they disagree with Brown.--Filll (talk) 03:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: ICR's research

message: It says a scientist at CSC. Brown is the only scientist at CSC. Also it appears in the blog about finances which we can also cite.--Filll (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry -- missed that point. It is still however a fairly obscure and non-notable position. HrafnTalkStalk 03:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I added an newspaper article cite about it confirming it was him by name.--Filll (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed verification

message: Continuation of an article he wrote for NCSE. Took information from 990 forms.--Filll (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Lippard blog

message: How can you be notorious and obscure at the same time? And he got it published in a newspaper in Seoul. That says something.--Filll (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Obscure, in that nobody except for aficionados of religious right wingnuttery would have heard of him, notorious in that among such aficionados he is known to be one of the wingnuttiest. He typically publishes on The Conservative Voice (which specialises in such drivel) e.g. . The Seoul Times is an "internet English newspaper for foreigners in Korea". I suspect its editorial standards may be somewhat dodgey. It regularly publishes Ranganathan's tripe. His byline claims that he has published in Pravda, but the famous communist newspaper of that name no longer exists, and 'Pravda online' (which is what I suspect he is refering to) is "an unrelated Internet-based newspaper". HrafnTalkStalk 04:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: South Korea is probably the country with the most active young-earth creationists after the United States.  It's also a hotbed of Pentecostal Christianity, with several of the worlds top ten mega-churches being located in Seoul.  Lippard 23:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Brown does have enough adherents, that at least one attempted to assert Brown's views on the Oort cloud. In response I researched and created a detailed criticism section here which was eventually removed as OR; but I certainly feel an article should be in place to present ideas and criticisms in case of future Good Faith attempts. - RoyBoy 800 02:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, WP:RSs on Brown are patchy to say the least, making for a somewhat skeletal article, that often can't cover areas that it ought to. HrafnTalkStalk 16:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why is Brown listed under Creationists and Creation Science? We66er (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He is both a Creationist and a notable proponent of Creation Science, particularly claims about Hydroplates. Neither of the two is a subcat of the other, so it is unexceptional to have him in both categories. HrafnTalkStalk 19:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  All creationists make some claim. Should all of them be included in both? Kent Hovind with the "Hovind Theory," Carl Baugh with "hexagonal water/Creation water," Russell Humphreys with "White Hole Cosmology," Robert V. Gentry with Radiohalos, and so on. It seems redundant.  We66er (talk) 19:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not all creationists are prominent for advocacy and promotion of specific pseudoscientific claims. It is possible that we should create a subcat for 'Creation Scientists' under 'Creationists', 'Creation Science' (and also of 'Pseudoscientists') , to avoid this duplication. HrafnTalkStalk 05:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notorious and obscure 

message: :Image:Walt_Brown_(creationist).jpg has been tagged as . If somebody wishes to dispute this assertion, they can add  to the image description page and a comment explaining their reasoning to the . [Paraphrased from a notice placed on the original image-uploader's user talk.]
My suspicion is that the image is unlikely to survive this challenge (regardless of whether it is disputed), so we should probably look for a free-use equivalent. HrafnTalkStalk 04:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Walt_Brown_(creationist).jpg 

message: This article should be titled Walt T. Brown. Would have done the move myself but someone has erroneously created the page as a redirect. Biofase flame| stalk  22:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NAMEPEOPLE would appear to indicate that 'Walt Brown (creationist)' is more appropriate as he's far more commonly known as 'Walt Brown' than 'Walt T. Brown'. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper name 

message: After 2-3 decades in studying Creation Science I have never seen media by Answers In Genesis which espouse an Old Earth Creationist viewpoint.  Chugiak (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The article states nowhere that Answers in Genesis is an old Earth creationist organization. It does mention Answers In Creation, which is an old Earth creationist organization and completely different from AiG, as being an old Earth organization. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Answers In Genesis Position 

message: Pages and sections of pages explaining what "hydroplate theory" means have been deleted repeatedly, leaving nowhere on Wikipedia any way to learn what it claims. I have added a short description to this page. While I believe there is room for debate whether it is notable or should be removed from Wikipedia entirely, I think it is quite clear that if it is *not* notable neither is Brown, and vice versa. Therefore, if you wish to delete that section for non-notability, delete the entire page. 157.131.155.7 (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Without discussion from mainstream sources as well it doesn't belong. If you wish to rewrite it using material from [wrong link, removing it] feel free. Doug Weller talk 09:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, what you linked to there is a banned user, not a source. Second of all, there is no reason to restrict it to mainstream sources to explain *what his views are*. Describing his views is not an endorsement, and Wikipedia having numerous mentions of the theory and no description of its content is massively dispreferable to having a short description of its content based on a source biased in its favor (filtered through an editor who is, I assure you, extremely hostile to the idea). Reverting your revert now; as I said before, if you want to remove this, remove the page. 157.131.155.7 (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Wish I'd seen this at the time, removing the wrong copy-pasted link. Doug Weller talk 13:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Hydroplate Theory and Deletionism