Talk:Ariel A. Roth

Copyvio

The article takes entire text from what appears to be jacket cover blurbs from http://www.grisda.org/resources/bk_roth.htm and rearranges the text, but is still word for word copies in a different order. I've removed the offending sections along with a minor amount of extra text that would not make sense with the removal of the main text leaving an article stub. -- Whpq 19:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Whpq, I think we have resolved the "entire text" issue. Thanks for your help. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggested Outline

With goal of improving this article, DonaldRichardSands included the following sections. Most of them are citations with quotes from the citations. This has upset Hrafn, so I have begun a subpage for the collection. You may find it here: User talk:DonaldRichardSands/Ariel A. Roth . Hopefully this helps. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Any entries below without a signature, I should claim as mine. Sorry for inconvenience, Hrafn. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I. Introduction

II. Early career (1948-1966)

III. Geoscience Research Institute - associate (1967-1980)

III.1 Origins journal editor

IV. Geoscience Research Institute - (director 1980-1994)

V. Retirement years (1994-present)

VI. The Creation-Evolution Debate

Expanded Outline, Suggested paragraphs

I. Introduction

I.1 Birth and teen years

I.2 University years

II. Early career (1948-1966)

II.1 Pacific Union College

III. Geoscience Research Institute - associate (1967-1980)

III.1 Origins journal editor

IV. Geoscience Research Institute - (director 1980-1994)

V. Retirement years (1994-present)

VI. The Creation-Evolution Debate

VI.1 Ariel Roth's contribution

VI.2 General Evolutionists' counter agrument

Chronology for Ariel A. Roth

Most of the uncited material is from http://origins.swau.edu/who/roth/croth98.html

1948 B.A . Pacific Union College

1949 M.S. University of Michigan

1949-1950 Teaching Assistant, University of Michigan

1955 Ph.D. University of Michigan

1950-1957 Instructor to Associate Professor of Biology, Pacific Union College

1956-1957 Additional training in radiation biology, University of California at Berkeley

1957-1958 Research Associate, Loma Linda University

1958-1963 Professor of Biology and Chairman of Biology Department, Andrews University

1958 The following teachers joined the staff of Emmanuel Missionary College at the opening of the present school year. Dr. Ariel A. Roth from Loma Linda, California, is chairman of the department of biology. He succeeds Dr. Frank L. Marsh, who is engaged in research and writing in the field of geology for the General Conference.

• Wade, Mildred, correspondent (November 20, 1958). "In Brief: North America, Lake Union" (PDF). Review and Herald. 135 (54). Washington D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Assn: 20. Retrieved 2011-11-28.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

1962 Hammill, Richard, editor (April 1962). "What the schools are doing" (PDF). The Journal of True Education. 24 (4). Washington D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Assoc: 30. Retrieved 2011-11-23. {{cite journal}}: |first= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Dr. Ariel Roth, chairman of the biology department at Emmanuel Missionary College, reports that a butter- fly and moth collection valued at more than a thousand dollars has been donated to the department. It repre- sents an exotic arraj of Lepidoptera from all over the world. The collection was brought together by George B. Mohlmann.

1963-1969 Additional training in geology and mathematics, University of California at Riverside

1963-1971 Professor of Biology and Chairman of Biology Department, Loma Linda University

Campbell, M.V., Chair (November 2, 1967). "Ariel Roth - Geoscience Research Institute". Ninety-First Meeting of the General Conference Committee. 11. Washington D.C.: General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists: 67:770. Retrieved 2011-11-23.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

ARIEL ROTH—GEOSCIENCE RESEARCH INSTITUTE:

Information was given that Ariel Roth is at present Chairman of the Department of Biology at Loma Linda University serving half time, and that he works half time for the Geoscience Research Institute.

VOTED, To pass on to Loma Linda University a call for Ariel Roth to connect with the Geoscience Research Institute for full-time work; effective at the

close of the present school year, July 1, 1968. It is understood that his residence will continue to be at Loma Linda.

1971-1973 Professor of Biology, Loma Linda University and Acting Director, Geoscience Research Institute

1973 ─ Professor of Biology and member of Geoscience Research Institute, Loma Linda University

1974 A three-man team of LLU scientists spent a week living 50 feet below the ocean surface off the Bahama Islands in May. Led by biologist Ariel A. Roth, the team studied coral formations one and a half miles off Freeport, Grand Bahama Island. They lived in an anchored 18-foot metal hydro-lab when not conducting their experiments. The underwater laboratory and sleeping quarters is operated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the Department of Commerce and is used by various research groups.

• Wood, Kenneth H., editor (June 13, 1974). "News Notes: Loma Linda University" (PDF). Review and Herald. 151 (24). Washington D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Assn: 20. Retrieved 2011-11-28. {{cite journal}}: |first= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Has given hundreds of lectures over the World, and conducted dozens of geology field trips in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States

1979 Wrote the Geoscience Research Institute's CORAL REEF GROWTH, Origins 6(2):88-95 (1979). http://www.grisda.org/origins/06088.htm

1980 ─ 1994 Director, Geoscience Research Institute

1981

Roth testified at the Arkansas trial of the "Balance Treatment Act

"The 1981 trial of Arkansas Act 590, the "Balanced Treatment Act," which required "creation science" to be taught in public schools along with evolution, provided an opportunity to see creationists' scholarship and their case at their best... Ariel Roth, also of Loma Linda, when asked if "creation science" was really science, said, "If you want to define 'science' as testable or predictable, I would say no." (That a proposition be testable or predictable is the definition of science.) Remember, these are people who support the fundamentalist position; but they cannot bring themselves, in a court of law, to claim that "creation science" is really science. Their honesty is refreshing." p.134

Berra, Tim M. (1990). Evolution and the myth of creationism: a basic guide to the facts in the evolution debate. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. p. 134. ISBN 0-8047-1548-3.

In 1981, GRI director Ariel Roth gave the keynote address to a hearing of the Oregon House Education Committee in which he advocated a bill requiring the state's public school teachers to acquaint students with special creationism.
Morgan, Douglas (2001). Adventism and the American republic: the public involvement of a major apocalyptic movement. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press. p. 204. ISBN 1-57233-111-9.

1993 Utt, Richard H. (February 1993). "Evolution: The working model doesn't work. An interview with Ariel Roth, Ph.D., director, Geoscience Research Institute, Loma Linda, California" (PDF). Liberty. 88 (2). Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Assn. Retrieved 2011-11-27.

1994 – 1996 Senior Research Scientist, Geoscience Research Institute

1993, Richard Utt Interviews Roth

For much of his adult life Roth has been active

in the evolution-creation controversy. He served as a witness or consultant in litigation involving creationism and the schools in California, Oregon, and Arkansas, and conducted geology field trips in Australia, New Zealand, Europe, and America. He has published several scores of articles in scientific and popular journals. He edits a magazine called Origins and directs the Geoscience Research Institute (GRI), with headquarters in Loma Linda, California.

Utt, Richard H. (February 1993). "Evolution: The working model doesn't work. An interview with Ariel Roth, Ph.D., director, Geoscience Research Institute, Loma Linda, California" (PDF). Liberty. 88 (2). Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Assn. Retrieved 2011-11-27.

Numbers info about Roth

• Roth was born in 1927
• He was a former student of Clark
• Ritland hired Roth
• He earned a doctorate in parasitology at the university of Michigan
• He became a geologist educated at the University of California at Riverside.
• He along with Coffin maintained their Young earth creationist stance.
• In 1969, Roth, along with others, helped publish the comprehensive work entitled Creation - Accident or Design?
• Roth edited GRI's journal Origins, founded by Brown. He helped set a new standard for critical creationist scholarship. From Berney Neufeld's early expose of the Paluxy River tracks to Arthur V. Chadwick's debunking of Burdick's Precambrian pollen and Brown's own assault on Gentry's radioactive halos, it carried some of the most trenchant analyses of creationist claims to appear in print. Under Roth's editorship, by the 1980s it had become a publication of choice even for non-Adventist creationists.
• Roth advocates flood geology.

Numbers, Ronald L. (1993). The creationists: The evolution of scientific creationism. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 295, 297. ISBN 0-520-08393-8.

"Ritland gave a part-time appointment to Ariel A. Roth (b. 1927), a former student of Clark's who had earned a doctorate in parasitology at the University of Michigan and who used his time with GRI to retool as a geologist at the University of California at Riverside. Unfortunately for Ritland, he proved to be only an average judge of character. Although James and Lugenbeal lined up solidly behind his revisionist program, Coffin and Roth ultimately found it psychologically and theologically impossible to break substantively with the flood-geology model. When Roth "backed off from the brink" and retreated to the shelter of White's cosmogony, the badly disappointed Ritland knew the tide had turned. 27

"The nearly simultaneous publications of two GRI books at the end of the decade - one by Coffin, the other by Ritland - publicly exposed the widening fissure between the two institute factions. In 1969 Coffin, assisted by Roth, Clark, and a few other traditionalists, brought out a comprehensive work entitled Creation - Accident or Design? As Clark had been urging for decades, Coffin modified Price's scheme by accepting post-flood glaciation and an orderly geological column; and, following Ritland, he allowed for substantial pre- and post-flood fossilization. But he refused to deviate one jot from a strict reading of the Bible and the writings of White. Only the imprecision of White's statements on the age of the earth gave him the latitude to add a few years to the six thousand she frequently mentioned. 28

...

"He and his colleagues at the GRI especially liked to contrast their careful studies with the sometimes slipshod presentations of Morris and his staff at the ICR. Indeed, the GRI's journal Origins, founded by Brown and edited by Roth, set a new standard for critical creationist scholarship. From Berney Neufeld's early expose of the Paluxy River tracks to Arthur V. Chadwick's debunking of Burdick's Precambrian pollen and Brown's own assault on Gentry's radioactive halos, it carried some of the most trenchant analyses of creationist claims to appear in print. By the 1980s it had become a publication of choice even for non-Adventist creationists. 32

"Under Brown and his successor, Roth, who moved the institute's main offices to Loma Linda, California, the GRI devoted itself to salvaging what it could of flood geology."

Internet Links relevant to Roth

CV

Southwestern Adventist University. Qualifications and Experience of Ariel A. Roth, Ph.D. http://origins.swau.edu/who/roth/croth98.html

NCSE

Creation Evolution Journal. Issue 7 (Winter 1982) Victory in Arkansas: The Trial, Decision, and Aftermath Creation Evolution Journal Title: Victory in Arkansas: The Trial, Decision, and Aftermath Author(s): Frederick Edwords Volume: 3 Number: 1 Year: 1982 Quarter: Winter Page(s): 33–45 This version might differ slightly from the print publication. http://ncse.com/cej/3/1/victory-arkansas

Why Creationism Should Not Be Taught As Science Creation Evolution Journal Title: Why Creationism Should Not Be Taught As Science Author(s): Frederick Edwords Volume: 2 Number: 1 Year: 1981 Quarter: Winter Page(s): 6–36 This version might differ slightly from the print publication. Part 2. The Educational Issues http://ncse.com/cej/2/1/why-creationism-should-not-be-taught-as-science

Fatal Flaws: What Evolutionists Don't Want You to Know by Hank Hanegraaff Reviewed by Michael Buratovich Review: Fatal Flaws Reports of the National Center for Science Education Volume: 26 Year: 2006 Issue: 3 Date: May–June Page(s): 46–47 Reviewer: Michael Buratovich, Spring Arbor University This version might differ slightly from the print publication. Work under Review Title: Fatal Flaws: What Evolutionists Don't Want You to Know Author(s): Hank Hanegraaff Nashville: W Publishing Group, 2003. 112 pages http://ncse.com/book/export/html/1855 Hanegraaff's book contains a great dependence on secondary sources, which leads to a perpetuation of common errors found in the works of many recent creationists. For a better book from a recent creationist perspective, see Ariel A Roth's Origins (Hagerstown [MD]: Review and Herald, 1998). http://ncse.com/book/export/html/1855

Creation.com

‘Millions of years’ are missing. Jonathan Sarfati interviews biologist and geologist Ariel Roth. http://creation.com/ariel-roth-interview-flat-gaps

Roth info from this site:

• Dr Ariel A. Roth was born in Geneva, Switzerland.
• He grew up in Europe, the Caribbean and North America.
• He holds a B.A. degree in Biology from Pacific Union College,
• a Master’s degree in biology and a Ph.D. in zoology from the University of Michigan.
• He has taken additional training in geology, mathematics and radiation biology at various campuses of the University of California.
• Dr Roth is a former director of the Geoscience Research Institute in Loma Linda, California.
• During his career he held numerous university positions, including professor of biology and chairman, Loma Linda University, *where he directed a university team for underwater research on coral,

• which was sponsored by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

• He has authored over 150 articles on origins issues and for 23 years
• edited the journal Origins (GRI) for 23 years.

Answers in Genesis

Ariel A. Roth, Biology article at Answers in Genesis http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/isd/ariel-roth by Ariel A. Roth on January 1, 2001

Introduction:

Dr. Roth is a former director of the Geoscience Research Institute in Loma Linda, California. He holds a B.A. in biology from Pacific Union College and an M.S. in biology and a Ph.D. in biology from the University of Michigan. His research has been supported by U.S. government agencies. During his career he held numerous university positions, including professor of biology and chairman, Loma Linda University. During the latter appointment, Dr. Roth directed a university team for underwater research on coral, which was sponsored by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. He has authored over 140 articles on origins issues and for 23 years edited the journal Origins.

Record of Speaking Appointments

• 1968, Riverside, California, La Sierra campus, Extension School lor ministers of Southeastern and Southern California Conferences, June 9-July 11
• 1970, July 20 - August 21. Andrews University extension school in Collonges, France. Southern European Division
• 1977, http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/CUV/CUV19771006-V82-19__C.pdf

During August it was my privilege to join the Geological

Field Conference, which was sponsored by the General Conference and involved our ten union presidents, plus General Conference leadership personnel and our four very qualified Geoscience Institute scientists— Dr. Robert Brown, director of the Institute, Dr. Harold James, Dr. Harold Coffin, and Dr. Ariel Roth. These staff members led us over a 2,200-mile course involving 18 days of the most exciting geological evidences

to be found in our great country.

• 1978, Mayer and Roth debate in Liberty magazine re: Creationism in schools
• 1990, Devotional message presented Sunday morning at the General Conference session. We shall behold him: In the wonders of creation. July 8, 1990.
• 1991, Ariel Roth, Director, and Ben Clausen, nuclear physicist, from the General Conference Geoscience Research Institute located on the Loma Linda University campus, conducted a special seminar for eminent scientists of the Union of Sovereign States. Roth told Wilson that he had never met a group of scientists so open-minded in the field of science and religion.GCC1991-09, p. 23

Presentation to the CSF:

• March 3, 2007, "Charles Darwin and the Eye."
• October 15, 2005, "Was There A Global Flood?"
• January 17, 2009, An overview of his book, Science Discovers God
• May 2, 2009, "Was There A Global Flood?"
• October 17, 2009, "Natural Selection Interferes with Evolution."

"Past Events: Visiting Scientists Lecture Series & Video Presentations". Creation Science Fellowship of Calvary Chapel, Costa Mesa, CA. Retrieved 2011-11-24.

More to be added...

Information about Roth from the 1981 Deposition

• "Deposition of Ariel Roth". McLean v. Arkansas Documentation Project. November 16, 1981. Retrieved 2011-11-24.
• "Depositions,". McLean v. Arkansas Documentation Project. Retrieved 2011-11-24.

The Deposition of Ariel Roth by Wolff provides a reliable source for much information about Roth. This section is for the listing of facts mentioned in the Deposition.

• The DEPOSITION OF DR. ARIEL ROTH took place on Monday, November 16, 1981. (p. 1)
• The information included is sworn testimony. (p. 3)
• Stephen G. Wolfe, attorney at law for SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, 919 Third Avenue, New York, New York 10022, represented by STEPHEN G. WOLFE, Attorney at Law, appeared as counsel on behalf of the plaintiffs. He asked Roth the deposition questions.
• David Williams, Deputy Attorney General, on behalf of STEVE CLARK, Attorney General, State of Arkansas, Justice Building, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201, appeared as counsel on behalf of the defendants. (p. 5)
• Ariel Roth's curriculum vitae was identified as Exhibit 1. (p. 5)
• In his vita, Roth listed a number of publications. He brought an almost complete set of those publications. (p. 12)
• Roth's major area of study at PUC was Biology. (p. 13)
• For his University of Michigan Master's degree his major was biology or zoology. (p. 14)
• For his University of Michigan Ph.D. it was zoology. (p. 14)

Reliable Sources

Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselvesSelf-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1.the material is not unduly self-serving; 2.it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities); 3.it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 4.there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; 5.the article is not based primarily on such sources. This also applies to pages on social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-published_sources_(online_and_paper)#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_7#Use_of_court_documents_as_reliable_sources

Education

B.A . Pacific Union College 1948

M.S. University of Michigan 1949

Ph.D. University of Michigan 1955

Additional training in radiation biology, University of California at Berkeley 1956-1957

Additional training in geology and mathematics, University of California at Riverside 1963 . . . 1969

Work Experience

Senior Research Scientist, Geoscience Research Institute 1994 – 1996

Director, Geoscience Research Institute 1980 ─ 1994

Professor of Biology and member of Geoscience Research Institute, Loma Linda University 1973 ─

Professor of Biology, Loma Linda University and Acting Director, Geoscience Research Institute 1971-1973Teaching Assistant, University of Michigan 1949-1950

Professor of Biology and Chairman of Biology Department, Loma Linda University 1963-1971

Professor of Biology and Chairman of Biology Department, Andrews University 1958-1963

Research Associate, Loma Linda University 1957-1958

Instructor to Associate Professor of Biology, Pacific Union College 1950-1957

Roth and the YE Creationist Community

Young and Stearley discuss YEC

A significan development within the creationist movement was the establishment of the International Conference on Creationism held every fourth year in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 115 Unlike most of the early creationist literature, many of the papers in the technical proceedings volumes published by the conference are marked by considerable scientific and mathematical sophistication. The movement has also been encouraged by the entrance of a handful of younger scholars with doctoral degrees in geology, a serioius lack in early days of creationism.

The presence within the Flood geology movement of people with doctoral degrees like Leonard Brand, Arthur Chadwick, Stephen Austin, Kurt Wise, Andrew Snelling, Elaine Kennedy and Marcus Ross has not only lent greater scientific sophistication to the Flood geology movement but also has served as an internal check on some of the more egregious geologic errors in the writing of enthusiastic but ill-informed creationists. The publications of some of the more recent advocates of Flood geology such as Ariel Roth and Leonard Brand also have a much more irenic and moderate tone that provides a welcome contrast to the sarcastic, sometimes disrespectful tone and unwarrantedly dogmatic pronouncement of earlier creationists. Young-Earth creationists have, of course, continued to issue books and articles designed to convince people of the truth of a young Earth, and many of these will be noted in succeeding chapters.

Despite the facts that young-Earth creationism has become considerably more sophisticated and that some of its proponents are much more geologically knowledgeable than were earlier advocates like Price or Morris, the claims advanced in favor of a young Earth or of Flood geology remain unacceptable to the scientific community. Thus their claims should also be unacceptable within the church, which, of all places, ought to be committed to truth and reality-- for the simple reason that the young-Earth creationist claims lack scientific credibility. They neither disredit evidence for an old Earth nor compel acceptance of a young Earth or a global Flood. Some of their claims are examined in chapters eight through fifteen.

Young, Davis A.; Stearley, Ralph F. (2008). The Bible, rocks, and time: geological evidence for the age of the earth. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press. pp. 160, 161. ISBN 978-0-8308-2876-0.

The Institute for Creation Research

• Thomas, Brian (August 22, 2011). "Continents Should Have Eroded Long Ago". Articles. Institute for Creation Research. Retrieved 2011-11-26.

• Thomas, Brian. Continents Should Have Eroded Long Ago. Institute for Creation Research

Mr. Thomas, M.S. is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.

...In order to maintain their belief in long ages, some might suggest that landforms were repeatedly uplifted by tectonic forces, providing more land mass for weather to erode. However, Loma Linda University geologist Ariel Roth noted that this scenario would have obliterated the very rock layers that supposedly represent evolution's millions of years! He wrote:

It has been suggested that mountains still exist because they are constantly being renewed by uplift from below. However, this process of uplift could not go through even one complete cycle of erosion and uplift without eradicating the layers of the geologic column found in them. Present erosion rates would tend to rapidly eradicate evidence of older sediments; yet these sediments are still very well-represented, both in mountains and elsewhere.2

The newly reported erosion rates confirm this longstanding argument. The fact that mountains and even continents still exist is testimony to the young age of the earth. It looks as though the continents cannot be billions of years old, because they would all have eroded in a fraction of that time. And yet they still stand tall.

References

1.Portenga, E. W. and R. R. Bierman. 2011. Understanding Earth's eroding surface with 10Be. GSA Today. 21 (8): 4-10.
2.Roth, A. A. 1986. Some Questions about Geochronology. Origins. 13 (2): 64-85.

3.Morris, J. D. 2007. The Young Earth. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 93.

Answers in Genesis

The Answers in Genesis news searcher returned 58 mention of Ariel Roth in their articles http://www.answersingenesis.org/search/?q=ariel+roth&site=news-articles

In Six Days, the Scientists

• Jeremy L. Walter, Mechanical Engineering
• Jerry R. Bergman, Biology
• John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
• Paul Giem, Medical Research
• Henry Zuill, Biology
• Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical Chemistry
• Ariel A. Roth, Biology
• Keith H. Wanser, Physics
• Timothy G. Standish, Biology
• John R. Rankin, Mathematical Physics
• Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
• James S. Allan, Genetics
• George T. Javor, Biochemistry
• Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
• Angela Meyer, Horticulture Science
• Stephen Grocott, Inorganic Chemistry
• Andrew McIntosh, Mathematics
• John P. Marcus, Biochemistry
• Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
• John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
• Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
• E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
• Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
• John R. Baumgardner, Geophysics
• Arthur Jones, Biology

Religion and Origins

• George F. Howe, Botany
• A. J. Monty White, Physical Chemistry
• D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
• Walter J. Veith, Zoology
• Danny R. Faulkner, Astronomy
• Edmond W. Holroyd, Meteorology
• Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
• Jack Cuozzo, Orthodontics
• Andrew Snelling, Geology
• Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
• John Morris, Geological Engineering
• Elaine Kennedy, Geology
• Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
• Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
• Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
• Larry Vardiman, Meteorology
• Geoff Downes, Forestry Research
• Wayne Frair, Biology
• Sid Cole, Physical Chemistry
• Don B. DeYoung, Physics
• George S. Hawke, Meteorology
• Kurt P. Wise, Geology
• J. H. John Peet, Chemistry
• Werner Gitt, Information Science
• Don Batten, Agricultural Science

Some YEC Biologists

• Earl M.J. Aagaard Ph.D. Biology
• Mark Armitage M.S. Biology
• Chris Ashcraft M.S. Biology, M.Ed
• Jerry Bergman Ph.D Biology
• Kimberly Berrine Ph.D Microbiology
• Raymond Bohlin Ph.D Biology
• Patrick Briney Ph.D Biology (former atheist, now a Young Earth Creationist)
• Art Chadwick Ph.D Biology
• Robert Carter Ph.D Marine Biology
• Ken Cumming Ph.D Biology
• Daniel Criswell Ph.D Molecular Biology
• Richard Deem Ph.D M.S Biology
• David Menton Ph.D Cell Biology
• Gary Parker M.S Biology
• Ariel Roth Ph.D Biology

Coral Reef studies

Oard, Mike; Reed, John K., editors (2009). Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions. Green Forest, AR: Master Books. pp. 153–154. ISBN 13:978-0-89051-567-9. {{cite book}}: |first2= has generic name (help); Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Roth's reef studies are described in some detail.

Essays by Roth

TrueOrigin linked articles

• “The long search for an evolutionary mechanism”
• “Genesis and the Geologic Column”
• “Incomplete Ecosystems”
• “Life in the Deep Rocks and the Deep Fossil Record”
• “Those Gaps in the Sedimentary Layers”
• “Flood Stories - Can They Be Ignored?”
• “Clastic Pipes and Dikes in Kodachrome Basin”
• “Coral Reef Growth”
• “False Fossils”
• “Fossil Reefs and Time”
• “Turbidites”
• “'Flat gaps' in rock layers challenge long geologic ages” [PDF]
• “Some Questions About Geochronology”
• “Are Millions of Years Required to Produce Biogenic Sediments in the Deep Ocean?”

Origins Journal and the Geoscience Research Institute

1980 Report at GC Session ... The most widespread and permanent influence of the insti tute will probably be made by the semiannual journal Origins. In its six years of publication under the editorship of Ariel Roth, Origins has become identified among both creationists and noncreationists as an example of careful scholarship and sound scientific approach. Origins is supplied complementarily to Seventh-day Adventist secondary schools, colleges, and universities, and to both science and religion teachers in these institutions. It has a growing list of subscribers from other individuals within the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and also among institutions and individuals not affiliated with the Seventh-day Adventist Church. R. H. Brown, http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/GCB/GCB1980-07/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=23

1985 Biblical Research Institute Report presented at the General Conference session. By GEORGE W. REID, Director ...Oversight and general supportive counsel to the operation of the institute is in the hands of a resident committee known as the Biblical Research Institute Administrative Committee (BRIAD). This advisory council includes members from the presidential, secretariat, treasury, and ministerial areas, and from the White Estate... The Biblical Research Institute Science Council (BRISCO) functions under the direction of BRIAD and deals with issues related to science and the Scriptures. Ariel Roth, chairman of the Geoscience Institute and a member of BRICOM, gives direction as chairman of this council of scientists and Bible scholars. A staff member of the Biblical Research Institute serves as secretary. In this manner BRISCO forms a link between the two institutes and provides an opportunity for scientists and Bible scholars to study together. BRISCO meets annually, often in a field location, to examine problems and to seek solutions in harmony with the Biblical view of Creation and the Flood. http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/GCB/GCB1985-09/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=11

1995 Gibson is director of GRI. He reported to the 1995 General Conference session: ...The institute employs five scientists and two support personnel. biblical Flood. Ariel Roth (Ph.D., University of Michigan) studies both living and fossil coral reefs. These reefs are believed to grow very slowly, which challenges our chronology of biblical events. http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/GCB/GCB1995-09/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=21

Roth and Mayer debate Creationism in public schools in Liberty magazine

"Two Scientists Debate Creationism, Evolution". Waycross Journal-Herald. 61 (226). Waycross, Georgia: 11. September 23, 1978. Retrieved 2011-11-25.

Washington, D.C. Two eminent biologists - one a creationist, the other an evolutionist - debate the merits of teaching creationism in public schools in the September issue of "Liberty", a magazine dealing with church-state issues. The magazine is published by the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

Dr. William V. Mayer argues the affirmative of the proposal, "Creation concepts should not be taught in public schools".

He is director of the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study and professor of biology at the University of Colorado.

A specialist in zoology, Dr. Mayer has published more than 300 books, articles and reviews and has contributed extensively to classroom material designed for secondary schools.

On the other side of the argument is Dr. Ariel A. Roth, director of the Geoscience Research Institute and professor of biology at the Seventh-day Adventist Loma Linda University in San Bernandino, Calif.

An avowed creationist, Dr. Roth is editor of "Origins", a scientific magazine devoted to the creationist viewpoint.

Dr. Mayer claims that (1) creationism as a science is unscientific, (2) it demands a denial of the senses, (3) it is advocated by a minority group, (4) it is deceptive, (5) it places an undue burden on teachers, and (6) U.S. Courts would challenge the constitutionality of teaching creationism in public schools.

Dr. Roth counters with these main points: (1) the general theory of evolution fails to qualify as good science (2) scientists should be open to competing ideas about origins, (3) teaching creation in public schools can be done constitutionally, and (4) fairness and commitment to academic freedom demand that alternative ideas of origins be taught.

1982, Victory in Arkansas: The trial, decision, and aftermath

Edwords, Frederick (Winter 1982). "Victory in Arkansas: The trial, decision, and aftermath". Creation Evolution Journal. 3 (1). Buffalo, NY: 33–45. Retrieved 2011-11-25.

Harold Coffin and Ariel Roth, from the Seventh-day Adventist Geoscience Research Institute, the most well-known creationists to testify, presented arguments against evolution. They refered to such things as the apparent rapid fossilization of extinct forms (which they felt would imply a sudden catastrophy, such as a worldwide flood, rather than slow evolution), the great depth of coal beds, the possibility that coral reefs could have grown faster than what evolutionists say, and the fact that the oldest known bat fossil looks very much like a modern bat. But in spite of this seemingly science-based testimony, which the state had hoped would show that creationism was not a religion, Coffin declared under cross-examination that, if it weren't for the Bible, he would believe that the earth was millions of years old. Catastrophic events outlined in the Bible, and nowhere else, coinciding with his scientific studies, convinced him that a world-wide flood had occurred about seven thousand years ago.

1981, Oregon, Creationists, Evolutionists Debate Measure

"Creationists, Evolutionists Debate Measure". Eugene Register-Guard. 114 (146). Eugene, Oregon: 37. March 18, 1981. Retrieved 2011-11-26.

Early Life

In the year 1905, W. J. Tanner was sent as our first missionary to Haiti. Four years later, at the General Con- ference session held in Washington, D.C., he was able to report 109 bap- tized members. When Brother Tan- ner's health failed in 1918, Brother Andre Roth, a young Swiss, was sent to replace him. By 1925, there were 20 churches, with 700 members.

http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH19590305-V136-10__B/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=21

1920, Mother, Hazel Roth

Sister Hazel Roth, wife of Elder Andre Roth, of. Haiti, who is visiting her parents, gave a splendid talk, sketching briefly the work in that field. She said the minister there does not bring -the people into the truth. fThe church members do that part. The minister then examines them and baptizes them.

http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/ALUG/ALUG19200609-V19-23__B/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=4

Andre Roth, Ariel Roth's father

1962, ANDRE ROTH— GITWE TRAINING SCHOOL:

VOTED, To pass on to the Southern European Division the call from the Southern African Division for Andre Roth, administrator of the Lake Geneva Sanitarium in Switzerland, to serve as director of the Gitwe Training School, in the Ruanda-Urundi Union, for a period of two to three years; with the understanding that his retirement will be postponed for the duration of this period of service,

http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/GCC/GCC1962-05/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=23

Deaths: ROTH, Andre G.—b. Aug. 17, 1891, Tramelan, Switzerland; d. Jan. 30,1986, Chicago, ILL. He served as president of the Haitian Mission and Saleve Advent- ist Seminary (Collonges, France), as director of Franco-Haitian Adventist Seminary (Haiti), and as professor of French languages at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary (then located in Washington, D.C.). Following retirement he served as business man- ager of the Lake Geneva Sanitarium (Switzerland), and principal of Gitwe College (Rwanda). Survivors include one daughter, Elvire; one son, Ariel; two sisters, Ruth and Herminie; four grand- children; and five great-grandchildren.

• http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH19860410-V163-15__B/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=20

1929, Collonges

On the following Sabbath we met with the students and teachers in our training school at Collonges in France. This institution is the reg- ular training headquarters for the Southern European Division. Last year there were nearly 150 students, representing more than twenty differ- ent nationalities. Fortunately, most of the teachers are familiar with several languages. In the history class the teacher asks the questions in French, but the answers come in different languages. One student an- swers in French, one in Spanish, an- other in English, another in Italian, perhaps one in German. One might think that a school with so many na- tionalities might be lacking somewhat in unity of spirit, but the very op- posite is the case. The students and teachers seem like members of one big family, and they thoroughly enjoy their associations together.

Impressed With Simplicity One thing especially impressed me; namely, the simplicity of the prepa-

rations for the occasional outings. School is conducted here six days a week, Sabbath being the only free day. This gives the teachers an op- portunity to meet the requirements for the year, and yet set apart about one day in a month for an outing, which usually takes the form of a picnic on the top of the mountain just back of the school.

The faculty usually decide on the outing the night before, but no prep- arations are made till the following morning, when they can be fairly sure of the weather. Then the an- iioi mcement is given, and the students

quickly make the necessary prepara- tions for the outdoor meals, and are soon treading the path that leads to the top of the mountain. Once on top, they play all kinds of interesting games, and between games botanize and enjoy the views, being in the center of some of the finest mountain scenery in Europe.

When the time comes for dinner, each student receives a big portion of bread, a liberal slice of mild Swiss cheese, a piece of protose, perhaps some fresh fruit, and a bowl of delicious hot chocolate made with milk. The afternoon is spent in play and social intercourse and then the girls and boys each form a company and start single file down the steep mountain side.

This school in Collongnes is preparing workers for France, Italy, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, and various mission fields. In fact this one institution is training workers to occupy a field that includes about one ninth the population of the world. The Sourthern European Division, with its large Roman Catholic population and likewise a very considerable number of Mohammedans, presents perhaps one the largest problems that contront our denomination, but the Spirit of God has gone out before our workers, and there are many encouraging features, not the least of which is the goodly number of fine young men and women preparing themselves in this school in Collonges.

The institution is uner the carge of Prof. Andre Roth, who is assisted by a faculty of efficient and consecrated teachers. Besides separtate dormitories for the girls and boys, there is a commodious administration building, containing the chapel and recitation rooms, which command fine views of the surrounding country. There there is a school farm with cows and horses, and an excellent garden where many of the boys earn a part of their expenses growing the vegetables and fruits that appear on the well-supplied tables three times a day.

• http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH19291114-V106-46__B.pdf#view=fit
• http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH19291114-V106-46__B/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=26

Comments

1. This article currently gives excessive emphasis to obscure Adventist WP:PRIMARY sources. Please read WP:NEWSORG for what are appropriate news sources for basing an article on.
2. In particular the fact that his department once received a small grant is completely trivial -- most major university departments would receive hundreds such grants each year, and they would amount for only a tiny proportion of the departmental budget.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, trivial is in the eyes of the editor. For Roth, the leader of a biology department of a university that advocates a FRINGE view, this three year grant is interesting (a criteria for a wikipedia article). The study of this serious and widespread disease is relevant to Roth's story. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 12:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Here we go again. Actually, "trivial" is a matter of WP:CONSENSUS, and I've never found an editor other than yourself who does not find such minutiae trivial. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Hrafn, welcome back. You have much to add to this endeavor. Aren't even self-published sources okay for information about the person. Haven't church published sources been considered reliable for example, EWTN on Roman Catholic issues. Certainly the material presented is not self-published and the facts are reliable, there is much to do. If Roth, in his CV, says he was born in Switzerland, wouldn't that be an acceptable source? Self-published about himself. If Roth declares something under oath, that seems quite a reliable source, kind of self-published, yet if he lies he is in contempt of court. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 12:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• No. Light use of church sources for uncontroversial facts is considered acceptable. Preponderant use of them violates both WP:WEIGHT & WP:PSTS. This has been explained to you before. To the best of my knowledge none of the material cited to date was published by Roth himself, so that whole issue would appear to be a complete non sequitor. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Within the Young Earth creationist community and among the science journals who have published Roth's studies there is a respect for the science reports he has generated. This article is about the person Roth, in the overall community of scientists, he has contributed, as most scientists do, a small amount of information; mostly about invertebrates. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 12:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Please cease and desist making unsubstantiated assertions of doubtful relevance. Please instead cite WP:Verifiable facts and actual policy. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Roth born in Switzerland, Reliable Sources

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

• 1.the material is not unduly self-serving;
• 2.it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);
• 3.it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
• 4.there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
• 5.the article is not based primarily on such sources.
• This also applies to pages on social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook.

What sources say that Roth was born in Switzerland?

Two sources have been added since the tag was put on the article. Neither of them are self-published. Though, I suspect that Roth's assertion that he was born in Switzerland was the original source. Afterall, who will try to ascertain this by check birth records in Geneva?

• And here we go yet again. Neither Sarfati nor CMI are reliable sources, so per WP:ABOUTSELF (&WP:QS) cannot be used about third parties. That you harp solely about "neither of them are self-published" means that you did not read the policy that you just quoted. This in turn makes me wonder why the hell I bother trying to educate you about policy over and over and over again. The WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT is getting very very aggravating! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• I don't know why you bother to tell me stuff that is incorrect. I have read the policy. We will not see eye to eye on this. We need an unbiased third party editor to help us think this out. Adventist sources are not unacceptable about the basic facts re: an Adventist. If it were a controversial matter, then perhaps. But a fact about a person's birthplace is not unreliable. There seems to be no possibility of consensus between you and I. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• I would further suggest that an Adventist-published creationist work is likewise a WP:QS. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Hrafn, you are incorrect about this. Even if Roth published the information of his birth himself, it is allowed precisely because it is information about himself. And Adventist source is not a questionable source in any mention of another Adventist. Recall discussions about EWTN and is it reliable about Roman Catholic news info. You have consistently held that Adventist sources are unreliable about Adventists and this has never been stated as a WP decision. Nor has anyone demonstrated that basic facts about a person are unreliable. Dr. Baldwin is careful in his scholarship. He statement is reliasble. You have cast doubt on the truthfulness of what he has written. I suggest that your unwillingness to admit that Adventist sources can be reliable is a bias against Adventists. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

DonaldRichardSands: creationist sources (which are what you cited) almost never reliable, because they are extremist, promotional, and not known for fact checking. This constitutes "WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT of a policy that has already been explained to DonaldRichardSands." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Hrafn, you paint with too broad a brush. Are you saying that almost all creationist sources are liars? or they are careless with the facts. Would you say this to Dr. Baldwin. Have you ever seen Baldwin careless with his facts? It is Baldwin's book that I cited. It is published by the Review and Herald which has a long-standing practice of carefully checking things they publish.

• Baldwin, John Templeton, editor (2000). Creation, catastrophe and Calvary. Review and Herald Pub Assn. p. 15. ISBN 978-0-8280-1323-9. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

• Hrafn, you have no basis to doubt this books accuracy except your own bias against a church publisher. This is unacceptable. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• The book in question is subtitled "Why a Global Flood is Vital to the Doctrine of Atonement". This clearly establishes it as an extremist and psuedoscience-promoting source. If you think that it is reliable, then you're welcome to raise the issue at WP:RSN. It actually makes more sense to cite a WP:SPS source published by Roth himself for such material, rather than dodgey third party sources. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
• But if you want specific creationist lies contained in the book -- how about the tired creationist canard that evolution is a "theory in crisis" -- a claim that has no scientific basis or credibility. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Your problem is with Baldwin's title? Or with his scientific facts? Many YECs believe that evolution is in crisis. Does that make the facts he cites about Roth unreliable? Remember creationist publications are reliable about themselves even if consider pseudoscience. The scientific conclusions can be challenged, but Baldwin theology represents YEC theology. It is reliable to show YEC theology. It is aslo reliable to state a YEC advocate's birth place. Again, you paint with too broad a brush. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 19:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• No -- my problem is that the book appears to be chock full of creationist pseudoscience -- flood geology, "theory in crisis", etc, etc -- this renders it an unreliable source. That many creationists believe this claptrap does not make it any less fallacious, or a book making such claims any less unreliable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Also I would point out that neither source appears to state that he's a "naturalized American". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

A tag challenging the relevance of Roths study of schistosomiasis

Roth studies of Schistosomiasis has been challenged for relevance. This article is about Roth the person. Are his studies of Schistosomiasis relevant to his biography. Schistosomiasis is a miserable, chronic problem and certainly those who study it are doing relevant work in the science community. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

This quote is from the wikipedia article on Schistosomiasis.

SchistosomiasisFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search

Schistosomiasis

Schistosomiasis (also known as bilharzia, bilharziosis or snail fever) is a parasitic disease caused by several species of trematodes (platyhelminth infection, or "flukes"), a parasitic worm of the genus Schistosoma. Snails often act as an intermediary agent for the infectious diseases until a new human host is found. Individuals within developing countries who cannot afford proper sanitation facilities are often exposed to contaminated water that contains the Schistosomiasis parasite. [1]

Although it has a low mortality rate, schistosomiasis often is a chronic illness that can damage internal organs and, in children, impair growth and cognitive development. The urinary form of schistosomiasis is associated with increased risks for bladder cancer in adults. Schistosomiasis is the second most socioeconomically devastating parasitic disease after malaria.[2]

This disease is most commonly found in Asia, Africa, and South America, especially in areas where the water contains numerous freshwater snails, which may carry the parasite.

The disease affects many people in developing countries, particularly children who may acquire the disease by swimming or playing in infected water.[2] As children come into contact with the contaminated water source the parasitic snail larva easily enter through the human skin and further mature within organ tissues. As of 2009, 74 developing countries statistically identified epidemics of Schistosomiasis within their respective populations. [3]

This abstract from the journal Transactions of the American Microscopical Society demonstrates the importance, thus relevance, of Roth's work along with others seeking to understand the natural history of Schistosoma. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 14:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Nadakal,, A. M.; Chi, Lois Wong (July 1962). "Observations on the Ovarian Activity and the Fate of Ova During Egg-Laying Inhibition Period in Oncomelania formosana, an Intermediate Host for Schistosoma japonicum". Transactions of the American Microscopical Society. 81 (3). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of American Microscopical Society: 246–251. ISSN 0003-0023. JSTOR 3224045. Retrieved 2011-12-03.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)

Information concerning the anatomy and histology of reproductive systems and various aspects of reproduction in oncomelanid snails is available through the studies of Wagner and Chi (1957), Roth (1960), Chi and Wagner (1957). Roth and Wagner (1957, 1960a, 1960b), and others. These studies are primarily intended to provide a clue as to the effective control of the snail vectors or the oriental blood fluke, Schistosoma japonicum.

Bearing false witness

The claims that:

1. " A tag [was] challenging the relevance of Roths study of schistosomiasis" and
2. "Roth studies of Schistosomiasis has been challenged for relevance."

...is blatantly false.

• Hrafn, you are quick to tear down and do very little to help build a better article. The accusation of Bearing False Witness is unsubstantiated.

• Repeatedly accusing somebody of "challenging the relevance of Roths study" when the material in question makes no mention that Roth himself conducted the study (only that his department did) is both (i) bearing false witness & (ii) violation of WP:TALK by "misrepresent[ing] other people". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The challenged material stated merely that:

In 1961, while Roth was head of the biology department at EMC, the United States Public Health Service awarded the department $17,082 to be used in a three-year study of the disease schistosomiasis.

No mention was made in the material that Roth himself performed the commissioned work. But regardless of whether it was Roth himself, or simply his department, the amount involved is trivially small and probably represents no more than a few weeks of his own time, or a few months of the time of a research assistant. Any science academic of any standing or seniority would in all likelihood have generated numerous grants of orders of magnitude greater size than this one. It is thus irrelevant. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Roth is the head of the department. The depardment is awarded the money. Anyone who knows how a department functions, understands that the department head sees these things through. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

DonaldRichardSands: if you are going to claim that the quoted material is 'relevant', then please prove that it is relevant by demonstrating that $17k is a significant proportion of a university biology department budget (either EMC's or an average one). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Hrafn, the grant is relevant to Roth's department. The granting institution would not make the grant if they didn't consider it important. $17000 is small but it was big enough to warrant a news item and if he had pocketed the money, it would have caused quite a furor. The grant is relevant on the face of it. Why are you so against such an assertion? Just because bigger universities would consider this small change doesn't mean that Roth's department viewed it similarly. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• What a load of nonsense. The USPHS probably spends more than this each year on postage -- it represents no evidence whatsoever as to what they consider to be "important". The only supposed "new item" is in a WP:PRIMARY Adventist source. I am against it because it is in gross violation of WP:PSTS, WP:WEIGHT & WP:NOT -- a point that has been made to you over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thou protesteth too much. lol DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Fine! Everything that you do/claim that is in violation of a policy that has previously been explained to you (which is pretty much everything that you have included here) will simply be reverted/rebutted with the simple statement "WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT of a policy that has already been explained to DonaldRichardSands." Is that sufficient minimum of 'protesting' for you? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think we need to address one issue at a time. But, we don't agree. Hrafn, you and I don't see eye to eye on very much. I don't understand. I can work with most editors, but you bring a hostility to the discussion which make it very difficult to get to square one. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 19:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• First you challenge a birth place, not self-published but published by the same faith community of millions of members. Then you challenge a relatively small grant important to a small institution and prestigious to the institution as well. I agree that the money given by the Health agency probably did spend more on postage. But I contend that the publishing of this grant shows that it was important to the school and its faith community and others looking to the school for any evidence of acceptability. It was relevant. Not from your eyes. But you come across hostile. This is no surprise that we cannot work in harmony on an article. Get used to it. Some people have had experience working with hostile editors. That being said, I have a high regard for your experience and believe that this article will be better for your ideas as long as you don't destroy what has already been done. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

— WP:V

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC) This constitutes "WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT of a policy that has already been explained to DonaldRichardSands." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• The question on which we differ is not verifiability. Rather is on reliable sources. You claim that Adventist publications are unreliable sources regarding Roth's birth place. I disagree. I say that even if Roth himself published his birth place, that would be a reliable source according to WP rules. Even self-published sources are reliable about the person himself. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• No I bloody well DID NOT claim "that Adventist publications are unreliable sources" -- I claim that CREATIONIST sources are unreliable -- a point that has been established numerous times on WP:FTN and WP:RSN On a related but separate point, I have pointed out that Adventist sources would be subject to restrictions due to WP:PSTS, WP:WEIGHT and/or WP:SELFPUB. 18:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Ah, now we seem to be making progress. Adventist publication are reliable sources, right, or usually reliable. Baldwin's book is an Adventist publication. Adventists are creationists, so we may need to clarify that. The birth place is published by a reliable source. Show us otherwise. Certainly to mentions someone's birthplace is not adding too much weight to the article. And even if it was Self-published, a birth place is an acceptable self-published fact. I see no valid complaint about Baldwin's source regarding Roth's birthplace. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Repeat after me:

• Hrafn DID NOT state that "Adventist publication are reliable sources, right, or usually reliable", please do not put words in his mouth.
• Hrafn DID NOT state that "Adventist publication are reliable sources, right, or usually reliable", please do not put words in his mouth.
• Hrafn DID NOT state that "Adventist publication are reliable sources, right, or usually reliable", please do not put words in his mouth.
• Hrafn DID NOT state that "Adventist publication are reliable sources, right, or usually reliable", please do not put words in his mouth.
• Hrafn DID NOT state that "Adventist publication are reliable sources, right, or usually reliable", please do not put words in his mouth.
• Hrafn DID NOT state that "Adventist publication are reliable sources, right, or usually reliable", please do not put words in his mouth.
• Hrafn DID NOT state that "Adventist publication are reliable sources, right, or usually reliable", please do not put words in his mouth.
• Hrafn DID NOT state that "Adventist publication are reliable sources, right, or usually reliable", please do not put words in his mouth.
• Hrafn DID NOT state that "Adventist publication are reliable sources, right, or usually reliable", please do not put words in his mouth.
• Hrafn DID NOT state that "Adventist publication are reliable sources, right, or usually reliable", please do not put words in his mouth.
• Hrafn DID NOT state that "Adventist publication are reliable sources, right, or usually reliable", please do not put words in his mouth.
• Hrafn DID NOT state that "Adventist publication are reliable sources, right, or usually reliable", please do not put words in his mouth.

Get the message?

1. Adventist sources may be reliable, but very frequently they will be considered WP:PRIMARY and/or equivalent of WP:SPS, due to their partisanship.
2. Therefore they should be used with caution and not allowed to predominate, per WP:PSTS and WP:ABOUTSELF.
3. Further, care needs to be taken not to give undue WP:WEIGHT to the Adventist viewpoint, per WP:NPOV.

These are all points I've made numerous times before, both on this page and previous ones. For this reason, I consider "Adventist publication are reliable sources, right, or usually reliable" to be a GROSS misrepresentation of my views as well as a GROSS violation of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 21:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment on sections Suggested Outline through Early Life

1. WP:TLDNR, so just skimmed.
2. Regurgitating 50k of material onto a talkpage on-the-trot is completely excessive.
3. Please sign talkpage posts.
4. Excessive usage of adventist primary sources.
5. Inappropriate use of unreliable third-party sources.

Please read WP:V, WP:RS, WP:PSTS and WP:WEIGHT again. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back, Hrafn. I have been supplying quoted information in the talk page section. There was very little activity at the time. The information can be collected otherwise. I wonder why you just attack and not try to build an article. Some have warned me about your dislike of people with faith. Certainly this is not true. Yet, in all of our activities shared you not only try to tear down what I write but I have never seen you try to improve an article on which I am working, as well. What gives? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

DonaldRichardSands: I "attack" your work because it is in gross and obstinate violation of Wikipedia policy and good editing practice. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• It seems that we disagree. If you are going to help me, you may need to find a kinder editor who agrees with you to show me the error of my ways. Your hostile attacks are not working. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Here's a better idea -- why don't you find an editor who does not insist on violating policy at nauseating length and with a continuous stream of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT, and I'll work with them. My hostility is a direct consequence of your own excess.Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• I will continue to work on this article. I certainly encourage you and all other interested editors to pitch in and let's make this a good article or feature article. We can do it. I have helped bring a few articles to GA status before and have helped another editor to reach a DYK status. It can happen. You have helped other articles before. You can do it. :) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Is the section tagged really suffering from over-detail

The over-detailed section. I don't see the over detail. The section describes which institutions Roth worked at. Hrafn, why not propose a rewording here, so we can examine what you think it should say. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Hrafn, it does no good to throw labels into the discussion. It accomplishes very little. Let's talk in a sensible manner. We are not going to agree, but at least we will know where we disagree. These labels might make you feel powerful, or something, but it does little for me. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 19:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• DRS: I have already explained why this material is inappropriate (see #Comments), therefore your demand for further explanation constitutes WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. I therefore see neither sense nor value in further discussion with you. Everything you have said on this entire talkpage "does little for me" (as it is pervasively without basis in fact or policy) -- so you will pardon me if I am rather less rthan sympathetic. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 21:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Hrafn corrects my assumption that he is biased toward SDA publications

I think that this warning from Hrafn deserves being placed here along with my response. I appreciate Hrafn's assurance that he holds no bias toward Adventist publications. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Ariel A. Roth. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. "Hrafn, you have no basis to doubt this books accuracy except your own bias against a church publisher." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• I am pleased that I am incorrect on this. I conclude that you have no bias against Adventist publishers. My mistake. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
• I must also conclude that you wish to assume good faith toward me. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
• So I will assume good faith toward you and you will assume good faith toward me. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
• Hmmm. Maybe we can work together yet. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Hrafn, you have stated your bias against (YE) creationist publications, haven't you? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Young Earth creationism is pseudoscience, that constitutes denialism of a wide range of well-established scientific evidence. Its publications have a long and well-documented history of misrepresentation of scientific facts, research and viewpoints. It is no more unreasonable to be "biased" against them than it is to be "biased" against The Hitler Diaries or any other fraud. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 21:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Roth and, even more so, Brand have made it a point to not deny well-established scientific evidence. Their scientific caution in this regard is a matter of the record among some secular scientists. They do not consider scientific assertions regarding millions of years ago to be based on well-established scientific evidence. Read Brand's statement to the California Board which is given along with Roth's. Wasn't it Lockley who commended Brand and said that he may do more for teaching Christians true science than the secular scientist can do. Wasn't it Toumey who interviewed Roth and others at GRI and considered them to be careful scientists. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Please point to any mainstream evolutionary biologist, geologist or astrophysicist who unequivocally accepts your first sentence. Further, I seem to remember (although I've forgotten the details) forcing you to admit that Brand was 'purposefully overlooking' some piece of scientific research that contradicts his claims. Your statement grossly exaggerates the very tepid and equivocal praise they have have garnered within the scientific community. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 21:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
• Brand and Roth don't seem to have trouble with the theory of evolution as it can be demonstrated with the evidence in nature. They challenge the General Theory of Evolution (using Kerkut's term) or what I have come to call common origin evolution. They acknowledge that evidence is all around us that evolution happens. There is not enough evidence to convince them that all life developed from a single cell way back millions of years ago. Roth and Brand and those at GRI take pride in speaking civilly of those who hold to common origin evolution. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• DonaldRichardSands: the "evidence in nature" -- and evidence from the fields of biogeography and population genetics come immediately to mind, 'demonstrates' evolution over millions of years -- WHICH DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS YEC, and which, as far as I am aware, Brand and Roth have never addressed. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
• I would further point out that Wikipedia has a very large article titled Evidence of common descent, covering a very wide range of scientific fields, and scientific evidence, the vast majority of which I would suspect that neither Roth nor Brand have addressed. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
• See also Creationist claim CA202: "Evolution has not been, and cannot be, proved. We cannot even see evolution (beyond trivially small change), much less test it experimentally." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
• Incidentally, as Roth has, on several occasions, made irreducible complexity-style arguments, has he ever addressed the mountain of scientific research (e.g. the pile that was dumped in front of Michael Behe at Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District) that explains the evolution of various complex systems? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• I would further point out that the "Many YECs [who] believe that evolution is in crisis" (I don't know if Roth or Brand are among their number), fail to account for the fact that the demise of Evolution/an Old Earth has been continually predicted as imminent for 185 years. Per WP:REDFLAG we are therefore entitled to require extraordinary evidence for this claim. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

One way to know what Roth has or has not said on the above mentioned topics is to read his book, Origins. It is online on Google Books at [1] It is only some 369 pages long and from the table of contents it appears that he addresses these things. SmittysmithIII (talk) 06:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Apparently only the first 90 some pages are available on-line. I have a .pdf copy which I keep on my computer for easy access. If someone wants a copy I can email it..... SmittysmithIII (talk) 06:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• I would further point out that this entire thread, in attempting to highlight my perceived "bias", is in violation of WP:AGF: "Rather, editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice." Likewise WP:TALK advises "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Therefore consider yourself to be warned again. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 21:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Point accepted. It is pleasant to read your assertions of good faith. As you may recall, you have not always been so pleasant in they way you have talked to me. I am not one to give out warnings. But even your warning is accepted as a signal of good faith.DonaldRichardSands (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• DRS: you seem to fail to comprehend WP:AGF -- it is not about being "pleasant", but rather about refraining from ascribing ulterior motives for actions -- motives that you have fairly continuously ascribed to myself. My problem with you is not that you are an Adventist, but that you try to give undue WP:WEIGHT to Adventist viewpoints and sources (which is known as 'POV-pushing'). I would object to this from any XXXist, as do many other editors (as you will see frequently articulated on WP:FTN & WP:RSN -- e.g. most recently on topics related to Astrology). When I see this WP:CONSENSUS ignored, I get annoyed, and eventually occasionally less-than-"pleasant". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• I do not intentionally "push" (AGF) an Adventist viewpoint. I work with Google books and Adventist Archives and report what I discover. This will seem like "pushing" an Adventist viewpoint, but AGF, please. If you want to "push" the critics viewpoint, I am okay with that. After all the editing progresses a balanced view point will emerge. I will attempt to put in critical views, but you, Hrafn, are so much more knowledgeable on the critical side, I invite you to "push" those whenever you want. And, let's both AGF in each other. Then, the editing process will remain pleasant, as it currently is. :) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 03:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• "I work with ... Adventist Archives" (very little of the material comes from Google Books) = pushing an Adventist viewpoint. Almost the entire 'Career' section is the Adventist viewpoint on Roth. It is not a violation of AGF to point out that all but a single sentence in that section is cited to Adventist sources. It does not help that much of this material is utterly trivial matter that no genuinely independent would consider worth bothering with. This material needs to be removed. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Trivial? Perhaps? Where a person teaches and when, is trivial? Not to the person; nor to his story. Roth is not being presented as a great scientist, rather his notability is mainly his connection with the GRI and the Young Earth creationist community. And of course, with Adventism. Utterly trivial? to Hrafn, yes. To the BLP of Ariel A. Roth? I don't think so. I certainly disagree. But it isn't the first time we have disagreed. :) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for twisting my words YET AGAIN! I did not state that Roth or "his story" was trivial, just that much of the material that has been added on it is trivial: e.g. that his department once received the trivial sum of $17,082 and that he once spent a week in an undersea lab. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• I am pleased that you do not consider Roth BLP trivial. It seems we can agree on that. Why don't we work together, if we can. I consider minor things in one's life important. What you consider trivial differs from what I consider trivial. Why not be inclusive. What harm can it do? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The answer to your last question, DRS, is that Wikipedia's job is not to be inclusive. That's what self-published websites, biographies, personal journals, blogs, official church histories, etc., are for. Our responsibility is to tell the broad overview of a person's life, focusing primarily (though not always exclusively) on the things that make the person notable. So, yes, does his career history matter? Well, not a task by task accounting, but a list of major jobs is probably fine, and as long as there's nothing really odd about the jobs, primary sources will be okay. The current career section? Well, I'm inclined to see it as a little bit excessive, though not extremely so. This, however, is an issue requiring editorial consensus, as no obvious policy governs the issue.

However, I want to respond to something else you said, Donald: "I work with Google books and Adventist Archives and report what I discover. This will seem like "pushing" an Adventist viewpoint, but AGF, please. If you want to "push" the critics viewpoint, I am okay with that. After all the editing progresses a balanced view point will emerge." Actually, no, this is absolutely not how Wikipedia works. We don't achieve neutrality by taking two partisan sources and putting them side by side. We achieve neutrality by excluding partisan sources (except for factual things they can be relied upon to tell correctly, like, as I mentioned, the places a particular person has worked). Yes, in some articles, we rely on partisan sources, but that's usually for articles that are actually about disputes themselves. This is a biography about Roth. Like all BLP, it should be based primarily on independent, reliable high quality sources. It should focus on the things Roth is notable for. And let me clarify that last bit: this does not mean "The things that Roth is notable for within the SDA/GRI/YE community(ies)." It means the things he is generally noted for, across communities. As Dominus Vobisdu says (indirectly) below, that is the info that would be appropriate for an SDA wiki. Again, the exact line for all of this will require discussion, possible trips to noticeboards, etc. But it also requires starting from the same set of principles, and I'm concerned that the idea of "I'll be the person starting from the SDA side" isn't completely compatible with WP's principles. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

California SBOE

The California creationism in public education conflict appears to have raged for much of the 1960s and early 1970s (e.g. see Numbers(2006) pp270-272), but there seems to be little indication that either the single meeting Roth attended in late 1972, nor his input at this meeting, had any significant impact. Lacking prominent third-party notice of his involvement, and given that creationists and anti-creationists testify at such meetings all the time, it seems undue WP:WEIGHT to mention this solely on the basis of the WP:PRIMARY source of his own testimony. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• I can understand your point. However, this is the only account as to what Roth said to the California State Board. Not all sources have to be secondary. This citation gives solid evidence that he presented to the board. Every person's presentation to such a hearing is important to their personal story. We have gone round and round re: trivial versus significant. This citation is both a secondary source and a primary source. As a secondary source, the mention of his presenting, it is reliable and verifiable. Then as a primary source, the link is interesting because any Wikipedia reader can read exactly what he said at the hearing and make up their own minds as to what he said. The undue weight opinion related to undue weight about what? The WP entry is a BLP about Ariel Roth. The fact that he presented to the California Board is important and proper weight to his story. Again, I challenge you to try to help tell the story of Roth rather than fight against it. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 07:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• This quotation comes from the Ariel A. Roth article

In late 1972 or early 1973 he presented to the California Board of Education hearings on Creation and the classroom.

• The note connected to these transcripts is a secondary source. The transcripts are primary sources. The tag needs to come down. The source is a secondary one. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 07:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• I would thank DonaldRichardSands to cease and desist doing me the incivility of insulting my intelligent. The fact that this publication gave the title "The Truly Scientific Approach" for this piece of truly anti-scientific polemics amply demonstrates its complete lack of independence from Roth's viewpoint. To claim that a brief editorial note from the editorial board that is providing Roth with this soapbox amounts to any substantive secondary coverage is quite simply absurd. What is 'needed' is for DRS to either put a non-tendentious reading of policy before promotion of the views of his own church, or to admit that his objectivity is so hopelessly compromised that he must confess a WP:COI and withdraw from editin Adventist-related articles. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• Hrafn, you are a very intelligent person. I would never insult you. I do believe that you are an advocate for naturalistic origins and common origin evolution and that you get upset when an article fairly represents the strong views of Fringe advocates, such as Roth. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
• It seems that you are wanting the Ariel A. Roth BLP to support your view of origins. Why does it concern you that this transcript of what Roth said at the California Board get some exposure. Are his views dangerous? Is his "soap box" a threat to your views of origins, to mainstream science's views? Whether you like it or not, the story of Ariel A. Roth includes his presentation at the California School Board hearings. Now, let's consider this source:

1. It is published by the Review and Herald, the flagship journal, for the Seventh-day Adventist Church. This journal is highly respected and certainly slanted to an Adventist view point.
2. It is a transcript of what Ariel A. Roth actually said to the Board. This makes the primary source especially helpful. Anyone wondering what Roth might say to promote his views, this is truly an important source. Right from Roth at his carefully thought out best.
3. The editors of the Review state that Roth gave this presentation at the California Board hearings. Thus, this citation verifies that Roth actually gave the presentation. The editors are not Roth, of course. Thus they are secondary to Roth. It is the editors comment which is the secondary source. Do they agree with Roth? Of course. Can they hire or fire Roth? No. Is Roth independent from them. They are both Adventists. They support each other. They are independent in matters of holding coercion over the other. Do the editors consider Roth's presentation important. You bet they do. Here is the flagship journal of Adventism giving the full text of what Roth said. Why? Because they consider what he said to affirm the Adventist view of origins. This does not make the source unreliable or unverifiable. It would be like a Roman Catholic journal applauding something the Pope said and including the text of what he said. The main difference is that the Pope has real authority over all official RC publications whereas Roth and the Review and Herald don't have such a relationship. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
4. This citation is a powerful source. It combines the actual transcript of what Roth said at the California State Board hearing with the editors' verifying that he actually spoke at the hearing.
5. This citation seems to be the only historical record available on the internet as to what Roth said at the hearing. And it is one of just a very few that actually mention Roth's presentation. For the Roth BLP, it is a reliable, verifiable source, valuable to our Wikipedia readership, IMO.
6. This can be viewed as a soapbox for Roth. What is wrong with that? If Roth is to be known as a man on a soapbox (of which he isn't known), isn't that too part of the BLP Roth article?

DonaldRichardSands (talk) 12:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

1. "It is published by the Review and Herald" -- a publication that nobody outside the SDA gives a rat's arse about.
2. There were in all likelihood dozens of CBOE hearings on the topic throughout the 60s and 70s at which hundreds of people, in total, testified. Nobody outside the SDA cares.
3. The editorial board are (i) Roth's co-religionists, (ii) the very people who invited him to submit this piece and (iii) in all likelihood share Roth's anti-science religious prejudices. They are NOTHING LIKE independent.
4. "Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." -- WP:NOT
5. It is only "a powerful source" to somebody who is so totally-immersed, drunk-the-koolaid, committed to the SDA viewpoint, that they are unaware that any other viewpoint exists. (I'm becoming increasingly of the opinion that this description fits you.) To anybody outside the SDA, the source has no power whatsoever.
6. The view of Wikipedia is that any subject worth mentioning should have been covered by an independent source. If no independent source exists, then it is not worth mentioning.
7. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to catalog every soapbox that every fringe advocate has gotten onto. It is only in the business of documenting those soapboxes that independent sources consider noteworthy.

I would note that you are aggressively pushing the Adventist POV by pushing a piece of testimony that only Adventists find noteworthy. In doing so you are violating WP:RS & WP:V, both of which emphasise the importance of independent/third-party sources, as well as WP:NPOV.

Further, you have convinced me that there is no point whatsoever in explaining policy to you further -- I should simply stop wasting my time and refer all further disagreements to noticeboards and/or dispute resolution. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we need other people to help us resolve these differences. I am also concerned about the uncivil tone that you, Hrafn, bring to this discussion. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Donald! I'm sorry, but I have to agree that the way you view the world is very heavily influenced by what information you receive from SDA sources to the point that you have difficulty viewing the SDA topics as an objective outsider would. The problem here is not so much about facts, but about the significance of those facts, and about how much WP:WEIGHT they should be given in the article. Things that are very significant for you, as a practicing SDA relying heavily on SDA sources are often not very significant or not significant at all for the rest of the world. A lot of the sources you use are published, at least partly, with apologetics and the promotion of the SDA viewpoint in mind.

It would be best if you started relying more on sources independent of the SDA church, and develop some objective distance to the topics of the articles you are editing so that you can see them in terms of "the big picture".

The problem is not that you are knowledgeable about SDA affairs and SDA history, but that you seem to have little knowledge of how they are viewed by scholars from outside the SDA church, and that is affecting your choice of sources and the weight you assign to particular events and people.

i know you want to be a good editor on WP and contribute valuable information to the project, bbut remember that "valuable" here on WP is determined by what the mainstream scholarly society says in reliable sources, not what any particular group says in in-universe sources. Taht is the kind of information WP readers expect to see.

By the way, have you considered starting up something like an SDA wiki? A lot of the information you want to include would be perfect in that sort of venue. You would be free to present everything from an SDA point of view without being challenged by other users. You might also be able to get funding from the SDA for the project. You will be able to rely on help from like-minded co-religionists, as well. It's worth thinking about. Good luck! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Dominus, I always appreciate your input. (I have a brother who is a Ph.D in micro-biology. That is your field, isn't it?) Yes, I usually wear my Adventist glasses. That is mainly because I work on Adventist-related articles. Once in a while I venture into other areas. My pattern of searching for all topics begins with google, then google books and google scholar, then adventist archives. I don't think my interest in minor information is all because of my Adventist mindset. My interests in bird watching and poetry, especially haiku, develop my interest in detail. Add to that an interest in the moment, existentialism. Anyway, I find all my interactions here on WP quite helpful. Thanks. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

A quick note on some points above (still reading more, as DRS asked me to review the situation): the terms "secondary source" and "independent source" actually have no relationship, and that may be what's confusing the issue. A secondary source is simply one written after the fact, analyzing what some sort of primary documents/source/data said. It refers only to the level of analysis. An independent source is one which has no connection to the original source, in terms of being part of a related organization, employer, relative, etc. Many sources are "semi-independent"; for instance, I was just editing a different article where BBC News had an article about a music show being hosted by BBC One. Now, that is definitely a secondary source (the music show itself is the primary source), but it's only somewhat independent of the primary source. Since the BBC has an extraordinary reputation for neutrality, this is not a problem there. This case actually looks similar: the speech itself is the primary source, while the comments in the Review and Herald are a non-independent secondary source. However, unlike the BBC, the SDA (as a religious organization rather than a news organization) does not have a reputation as a neutral, independent checker of facts, and thus should be handled differently. But, in this case, the only thing they are verifying is that he spoke at a particular meeting. That seems to me to fall very safely within something that can be verified by a non-independent source (i.e., I would trust a claim by Fox News that Sarah Palin visited a certain event and gave a certain speech, even though she's an employee and thus it isn't independent, because it's a simple reporting of fact). That doesn't, though, answer the question as to whether or not the event itself meets WP:DUE and should be in the article. I hope this helps distinguish the two points and get people talk to rather than past each other. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

References

RfC: Adventist sources in the article

(i) Is it appropriate that the section on Roth's scientific career is sourced almost solely to Adventist publications? (ii) Does the citation (to the publication of Roth testimony and an opinion piece by him in an Adventist publication) demonstrate that his testimony to the California SBOE is sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment 1: This article is a work in process. The section of Roth's scientific career is still being developed. As one of the editors contributing to this article, I believe that other non-adventist sources can be found and will be found. More time is needed. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment 2: All editors responding to this RfC ought to read the section just before this RfC section. The very fact that Roth presented to the California Board of Education is noteworthy. These board hearings are noteworthy, that is why they conduct them. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Background information

• The publications in question appear to be owned and indirectly controlled by the Seventh Day Adventist church, of which the subject appears to be one of their 16 million members. Their circulation of these magazines exceeds that of most newspapers in the USA, and they appear to possess all of the standard qualities that we look for in a reliable source: a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, published by a reputable publishing house, rather than by the author(s), a professional structure in place for deciding whether to publish something, etc.
• The basic complaint seems to be that the publications are biased, i.e., these religion-focused publications care about subjects that (according to some editors) nobody else would care about. However, being biased does not have any bearing on whether a publication is either independent, self-published, or secondary, and according to our policies and guidelines, "being unbiased" isn't a quality that determines whether a source is reliable.
  • To figure out whether the sources are independent, you need to identify any conflict of interest: Does Roth get coverage because he's directly or indirectly in control of the publications? Does he influence coverage by buying advertisements in them? Again, "independent" is not an alternate spelling for "unbiased".
  • To figure out whether the sources are primary or secondary, see Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent and Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources.
  • To figure out whether the sources are self-published, you need to know the identity of the author and of the publisher. Unless someone is prepared to make the case that Roth is the publisher of these magazines (rather than the people whose job titles are "publisher", or the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, which ultimately owns them), then any articles he's written for them are not self-published, and none of the articles by anyone else are, either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• View on Question "(i) Is it appropriate that the section on Roth's scientific career is sourced almost solely to Adventist publications?": IMO it is more appropriate to source this section to these independent, properly published (if biased/obviously POV-holding) magazines than to source it to a self-published university webpage, which is the typical source for such sections in professor's BLPs. Furthermore, I think it silly to complain about "intricate detail" in a section that is little more than a standard list of jobs he's held over the years with a mere nine sentences in three short paragraphs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• WhatamIdoing: Review published Roth's testimony and his opinion piece, under a highly partisan heading. This is directly relevant to whether this publication can be considered to be independent from Roth, and thus to WP:RS's requirement for "reliable, third-party, published sources". The heavy reliance on them (and you yourself admit that they are "biased/obviously POV-holding") also has implications for WP:WEIGHT. Further, I would note that the sum of $17,082 and that he once spent a week in an undersea lab, would generally be considered very routine, and thus "intricate detail"/trivia. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

  None of the sources in the ==Career== section are written by Roth. None of them are about his testimony. And, no, a willingness to publish a guest column on a single occasion does not make other stories about the guest author in that publication magically become non-independent. (The New York Times has published a dozen guest columns by Newt Gingrich; would you declare them to be a non-independent/first-party source on this presidential candidate?) The fact that they gave the story a "highly partisan heading" is immaterial. Being biased does not make the BLP part of the magazine's staff or give the BLP any control over the magazine. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

  All but one "of the sources in the ==Career== section are written" by Roth's own church, an affiliated/non-independent and small minority viewpoint with no particularly expertise on science (and in fact a decided WP:FRINGE axe to grind on the subject). Is this WP:UNDUE? Most certainly. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The SDA church has a very high view of science. It owns and operates Loma Linda University Medical Center in conjunction with Loma Linda University, which has operated one of the premier medical schools in the United States for over 100 years. It operates more than a hundred other hospitals, three medical schools, and about a hundred colleges and universities around the world. Science curricula is top notch in all of the church's educational institutions. Your comments expose your extreme fringe bias and abysmal ignorance. Mthoodhood (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:Complete bollocks. The SDA subscribes to the pseudoscientific viewpoint of Young Earth creationism. This viewpoint embodies the denialism of the evidence and theories of whole fields of science, including evolutionary biology, population genetics, palaeontology, biogeography, radiometric geochronology (and thus nuclear physics), etc, etc. It even has a whole institute, the Geoscience Research Institute, devoted to sweeping all this evidence under the carpet. To claim that the fact that it has a a good hospital in some way balances out all this anti-science activity is ludicrously partisan. SDA only values science to the extent that it either fails to contradict, or can be distorted to appear to support, their religious prejudices. This is hardly "a very high view". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Follow-up question: given that DRS has expressed his belief "that other non-adventist sources can be found and will be found" on "Roth's scientific career", I would like to ask the question, is Roth notable as a scientist (per WP:ACADEMIC)? His h-index is only 6 (based upon Google Scholar -- if you've got access to an index based upon a more comprehensive catalog, do let us know), and I have seen no relevant argument that he's notable on one of the non-citation criteria. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment 3 As far as I can tell, Roth is not a notable scientist or academic. The bar is set way too high for him to qualify. He is a notable person. He is a significant figure in the Young earth creationist community and in the Adventist community. Fourteen years the head of GRI and twenty-three years the editor of Origins. Within the Adventist community he is considered one of the church's foremost spokespersons on matters of science and religion. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 05:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• There is little evidence that "he is a significant figure in the Young earth creationist community" -- and there is far less coverage of his YEC activities than on the likes of George McCready Price, Henry M. Morris, Ken Ham, Kent Hovind or even Harold W. Clark, Jonathan Sarfati, or a whole host of other lesser lights. As to "in the Adventist community", I direct you to DV & Qwyrxian's comments in #California SBOE above. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Donald. That he is notable inside the SDA community is not as important for WP purposes as how notable he is OUTSIDE of the SDA community, that is within the overall creationist community and within society at large. Seen from the outside, he seems to be a minor figure in the creationist community that has had very little impact on society at large. Within the scientific community, he is basically unremarkable and undistinguished, and his scientifc exploits have had very little impact on society as a whole. I'm not even sure if he is notable enough to have his own article. Remember that the SDA is only a small part of the YEC creationist community, the YEC creationist community is only one part of the general creationist community, and the creationist community is only one part of society at large. That is what I meant by "the big picture". We have to put things in their proper perspective. That is what WP:WEIGHT is all about. Hope this helps! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The place to settle questions of notability is at AFD, not at an RFC. It is possible (relatively common, even) to have sources that are totally reliable for the statements they are supporting, and for the subject to still be non-notable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

No WhatamIdoing, notability frequently offers insight outside an AfD. In this case it helps inform the issue of WP:WEIGHT. If a topic is notable for some aspect of their life, then an argument can be made for having significant coverage (e.g. a top-level section) on that aspect. Where there is no evidence of notability for this aspect and no substantive independent coverage of it, it is very difficult to argue that the aspect merits more than a mere mention. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Consdier an example: In a BLP, one specific aspect of that person's story is controversial. That aspect receives the majority of attention in the published sources. The person's birth, education, family, interests, scientific studies, theological views, etc. can be found in the published sources but not much. How much of the lesser, or least, information may be mentioned without adding too much weight? If a 'trivial' event in a person's life really affected their thinking, but is seemingly minor, can that be mentioned? Doesn't the Weight given to the controversy make the person's story seem to revolve around the one issue. Isn't that undue Weight? Doesn't the news media often skew our understanding of a subject by giving undue weight to a controversy? Any thoughts? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 12:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• The claim that "a 'trivial' event in a person's life really affected their thinking" would be WP:OR, lacking a reliable source for the claim, so should never be introduced into the article (and if the claim cannot be introduced, there is little point in including the "'trivial' event"). Generally, unless a person is notable for their "interests, scientific studies, theological views, etc" these topics get fairly minimal coverage. We don't generally give extensive coverage to (e.g.) the theological views of scientists or the scientific interests of theologians, unless either topic impinges upon their notability. I'm afraid I'm seeing little basis for your argumentation within Wikipedia policy or practice. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
• Beyond non-compliance with policy, this view would appear to be completely unworkable. Neither we editors, nor the readers would be able to tell which 'apparently-trivial' events were actually meaningful to the topic, so all we'd be left with would be a confusing mess of minutiae, that is actually a hindrance rather than a help to understanding. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Nope: Notability has nothing at all to do with WEIGHT. WP:N directly says that it has no bearing whatsoever on article content. If you've got WEIGHT concerns, then you need to argue about neutrality, not about notability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you WhatamIdoing for that myopic and unhelpful piece of WP:WIKILAWYERING (which ignores the fact that WP:N clearly leaves open that it may indirectly "limit the content of an article"). Does your comment add any useful insight whatsoever? "Nope". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

As an outside observer, it seems to me that both parties in this edit war are somewhat mistaken. DRS is using less-than-reliable sources (according to Wikipedia policy) to bolster an article on a proponent of (let's face it) a fringe theory. Hrafn's offense, however (gross incivility), is to me the worse of the two. I'm not sure if public attempts to humiliate a fellow editor (however much we disagree with their views) aren't disrupting the encyclopedia to prove a point; see above for examples. Maybe you should both take a break from this article for a bit. Hope this helps! All the best, Miniapolis (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I think Miniapolis might have a point above. I regret to say that my own searches for Ariel A. Roth here and here give me no particularly good reason to believe that WP:BURDEN is met regarding the notability as per WP:N of this individual. The Historical dictionary of the SDA is I think an acceptable source (note 6) and note 12 and maybe a few of the others might be as well. However, I am not myself yet sure that those sources contain the significant coverage required of WP:GNG. To date, I have no clear reason to believe that they necessarily do. I think clearly and establishing the "significant coverage" required would probably be the best next step to take. John Carter (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Ukkk... I wish people who support sound theoretical positions about which they feel strongly, would not put those positions in a poor light by shouting insults. I do not remember having heard of AAR, nor in fact his associated institutions, but I followed up a few of the refs, and the arguments in the material are pretty routine for CS/ID and the like; simplistic fringe stuff. I think Miniapolis and John Carter, to name the most recent contributors, spoke pretty reasonably about participants on both sides of the divide. AAR may be salt-of-the-Earth in many ways, but if he made any substantial statements I missed them in the material I could dig up at short notice. If any of his research for his PhD or subsequently amounted to anything notable, I missed that too. However, at least he got a PhD. That is more notable than any of what seems to me a horde of rock-group wannabees and local celebs that infest the WP articles simply because there are too few of us to police them properly. I agree that his career, however virtuous, is notable most obviously for some public appearances and essays without academic merit or idealistic effectuality (putatively inspiring MB; a student question on deficient chelonian palaeontology for the love of...)

Look, in sum, I am inclined simply to ignore this article until someone abuses our toleration by making substantial claims and raising a fuss based upon it. After that we could step on it. Or in it. Until then anyone competent to play the dragonslayer would seem to me to be spending resources better invested somewhere more rewarding. If OTOH someone does insist on leaping into the breach, then I must admit that on cursory inspection (all I could afford) I found no independent, relevant, substantial sources, nor any notable achievements to present in extenuation, let alone justification. I wouldn't be inclined to join the attack, but am unable to justify much of a defence. But as for the tone taken by persons who were offensive when they could have been effective instead... With allies like that, who am I to spurn MB? JonRichfield (talk) 16:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I am another randomly recruited RfC commenter. As I understand the question it is quite limited and doesn't address N or WEIGHT as supported by the current citations but asks whether N requires more sources for other than solely Adventist ones. I think the question is moot since it appears that other sources have been added. Assuming I have understood the matter correctly, I suggest this RfC be dropped now. If there are new questions about N and WEIGHT, please start a new RfC. My advice to those with personal investment here: incivility is a sure way to minimize the involvement of disinterested parties who agree with your positions. Jojalozzo 15:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

An insufferable detailest

I realize that this Ariel A. Roth article is not about me. But, I have become somewhat the focus of discussion. A few words about one aspect of my WP editing may be helpful.

It has been suggested that my involvement with my faith community, Adventism, has caused me to have blinders on making it so I cannot sense the bigger picture. My faith community is an integral part of my life but my tendency to include detail is not because of that. My work on the Letitia Youmans article illustrates this detailist tendency. Youmans had no connection to my faith community, yet my detailing ways on that article are obvious. The main information about her came from an autobiography of hers, alas a primary source. I cut my WP editing teeth with a very patient editor who tried to teach me how an autobiography is problematic. The balance between good information and slanted information is a difficult one to attain for me, as Hrafn and others can attest. The Adventist Church has one of the most thorough online archives systems I have seen anywhere on the Internet. For me, it is a gold mine of information. Many WP Adventist articles can be improved with the information available in those archives. But, to only use those is not good. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Linkfarm

Our guidelines call for minimal use of external links but this is not being practiced here. Maintaining a list of ELs for a topic is not what Wikipedia is about. I propose we replace this inappropriate linkfarm with one or two links to independently curated link directories, if such exist, and if there are none, then drop the section and let interested readers conduct their own Internet searches. Jojalozzo 04:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ariel A. Roth. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://biblio.ugent.be/input/download?func=downloadFile&fileOId=952503&recordOId=952482
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100625220129/http://spectrummagazine.org/files/archive/archive21-25/25-3hayward.pdf to http://spectrummagazine.org/files/archive/archive21-25/25-3hayward.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120406115211/http://www.spectrummagazine.org/files/archive/archive11-15/15-2lugenbeal.pdf to http://www.spectrummagazine.org/files/archive/archive11-15/15-2lugenbeal.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.darwinisdead.com/Creation%20Science%20Fellowship%20of%20Calvary%20Chapel.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

External links

There were six entries in the "External links" with sourcing information. Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.

• ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
• LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
• WP:ELMIN: Minimize the number of links.
• WP:ELCITE: access dates are not appropriate in the external links section. Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section.
• WP:ELBURDEN: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them. -- Otr500 (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)