Talk:David R. Brown (neuroscientist)

WP:AFC submission comments and discussion

Comment: The sources provided are written by Brown (or come from organizations he's affiliated with). But sources for a biography must be about Brown, and have been written by a third-party. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply to comment: I think these commetns are unfair. Only two of the references indicated were by Brown (the book and the Nature) article. One references in on Wikipedia already, another is from the British government (SEAC) and the last is from a Chemistry organisation. As that is three sources from third parties I don't see your issue.--Gonkstem (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

After looking through the sources, I agree with User:Someguy1221. Source #4 is in fact a reliable source, but it's the only one I see as helpful for notability criteria, which I think hasn't been quite established yet. #1 is a bio of the subject from a chemistry organization that he's a member of, as they don't source any of the info it might just be from his resume for all we can tell. #2 is a Wikipedia article, we can't use Wikipedia articles to source other Wikipedia articles. #3 is a listing of him at a university, #5 is his book and #6 is written by him as well. If you could find more like #4, from sources that aren't closely associated with the subject or written by the subject, that would help for notability reasons. Raven1977^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 18:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Raven1977: I think the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia should be consistent. There is another scientist from the same University as Brown who is listed on wikipedia. Cheryll Tickle see below http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheryll_Tickle This scientists references for noteability are similar to Brown and include a similar faculty profile. What you describe as a bio from a chemistry organisation is a speaker profile similar to the one for Tickle. However, Brown is far more widely recognised, being frequently called on by the Media for his expertise. See for example:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4201072.stm

or the following dating back to his time in Cambridge

http://www.open2.net/healtheducation/body_mind/twocjdbse4.html

and if you want evidence of support from influential people - how about the Prince of Wales?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1381276/Charles-backs-controversial-CJD-research.html

If you require any further evidence from reputable third party sources please let me know.--Gonkstem (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the links Gonkstem has provided here are adequate to demonstrate notability. If nobody disagrees, I'll move the submission to articlespace. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for deletion

Blimey talk about blowing your own trumpet!! Quote from the Wikipedia help desk archives: "all this "discussion" remains on the discussion page associated with the article. I don't think it is appropriate for it remain there as it is not about the contents of the article and it also makes me known publically as the person that created it." And why would that be a problem I wonder? I note that Wikipedia strongly discourages autobiography. I believe this article to be entirely written by the subject. This is supported by the fact that Gonkstem's user contributions match up with the user contributions from an anonymous user identifying himself as David Brown on the prion talk page (also note this user edited the alumnus section of David Brown's former school). I should point out I used to work in the same field of research as Professor Brown and have met him (I have never disputed his work). I think that as Gonkstem and Gonzonoir are the only registered users (other than bots) to have edited the text of the article since it was moved to mainspace, this argues against notability. Regarding the links provided: one of the links is simply an interview with David Brown, while the other is a brief mention in a news report. Evidence of support from the Prince of Wales may support notability in general, but not notability as a scientist - rather the opposite (it's a bizarre thing for a scientist to admit to, let alone boast about). I'm therefore proposing this article for deletion. Purple 04:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I think your comments are very inappropriate. I an not David Brown. I placed the article and and the comments you misquoted refer to my insertion of the article not about my being Brown. They do not identify me as Brown at all as you are quoting something out of context. I believe you to be some rival of Brown who is trying to discredit him through professional jealousy. Therefore I think your wish to have the article deleted is not based on objective criteria. Objective criteria were sufficient to have the item added.--Gonkstem (talk) 11:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I fully expected the 'rival' response, however I would like to stress this is not true. I worked on prions as a student, but I no longer work in the field or have any links to it, and my research did not overlap with Prof Brown's. Purple 13:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Purples comments seem accurate to me, and just a straight denial from Gonkstem seems hollow. I would also suggest that support from the Prince of Wales is nothing to brag about. Bearing in mind some of the deletions and edits that go on in other areas of the wiki, this seems a straightforward no-brain deletion to me.Roxy the dog (talk) 13:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Put it up for Afd then. Personally I doubt you will succeed. Brown's controversial views and his books seem to support notability. I note this has not been added to any science/medicine projects. I wonder what they would say. This search shows plenty of references to his research in other scientific books. Johnbod (talk) 13:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Manganese binding

A contributor altered the text relating to manganese binding referring to a paper claiming helical changes. The majority of data confirms a change in beta-sheet content and aggregation - not helical content. Although initial changes might be helical, long term changes are not, they are beta-sheet. A paper by Tsenkova R et al. 2004 in BBRC shows time related changes that confirm this. So, I undid this contibitors changes, sorry.--Gonkstem (talk) 12:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Personal life

Unsourced text moved from article; material from here can go in when it's sourced. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Brown grew up in the western suburbs of Sydney where he attended Girraween High School. His father, Ronald Brown, was an English migrant and his mother, Margaret Crippin, was a third generation Australian notable for being the first person to survive a fatal form of viral meningitis. His mother was also cousin to the famous Rugby player Arch Crippin. Brown's childhood was marked by frequent chronic illness and poverty.

In 1994 Brown married Regina Buechner in Germany but they divorced in 2003. He has two children, Lorna Brown and Hadassah Brown.

Deletions

I have restored deletions of text made by a number of "critics" of the this article. I spent quite some time compiling this information (espectially the list of works). This kind of thing appears standard from what I have seen in other articles. Therefore I don't see any reason for the changes. I have replaced the image with one of my own. Although I don't think it is as good as the one deleted.--Gonkstem (talk) 20:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thread restored. You do not edit others' comments. And which bit of "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed" do you not understand? The tag for required citation has been on that section since April 2009: plenty long enough to be acted on. All Wikipedia material must have published citation per Wikipedia:Verifiability. It may well be true, but if you know it only through unpublished connections, no go: it's original research. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

A list of published articles is not standard in such BLPs. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC).

not standard

But not uncommon. Maybe the list at his Uni. of Bath research profile [1] would be sufficiently representative? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

A link to that page would be quite adequate. The list of books could be retained. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC).

Agreed - and done. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the point is the others should not be there too. There are obvious examples where this is not the case, i.e. if an author won the Nobel Prize or is widely associated with one portion of their work then listing a few works that direct the reader to those works makes sense. But I'd say any such list should be notable (as in have secondary media coverage). This person may have some such articles, and I think including them might make sense. PDBailey (talk) 00:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

new picture

If the new picture was taken by anything larger than a 0.05 mega pixel camera, can we possibly get a higher res version? PDBailey (talk) 02:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

For citation check

He also served for four years as a member of SEAC

I'm not comfortable with the logic here [2]. Four years between first and last appearance in minutes doesn't prove continuous service for that time, and it's a bit original research-y.

serves on the boards of four scientific journals, including the Journal of Neurochemistry.

Citing one doesn't prove the general statement. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Gordonofcartoon, we are getting a little uptight about these don't you think. I think you have to weight the claim against the reference. In the first case, the minutes seems like an excellent reference. It does not constitute a proof, but it is still very strong evidence and I would say it is back on another editor to find minutes where he is not present because now that he was there for four years is the simpler conclusion to draw from the data available. Also, citing primary sources is permissible and does not fall under OR. The article just needs more secondary sources, and it does have them. Also, read the first bullet in the 100th minutes, it thanks Dr. Brown for completing his second appointment to the committee.

As for the second one, here I see no reason not to cite all four, though it will be a cumbersome but why not. PDBailey (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Gordonofcartoon, we are getting a little uptight about these don't you think

Not really; there's no excuse for including material with citations that don't 100% verify the statement (particularly with this article where there have been citation issues). One ref. shows he was present in 2004. Another shows he has just left in 2008 after completing a second term of office. There's no information about whether the office was continuous. There's no indication of the length of a term of office. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, look at all of the minutes, he was on the committee (if not present for that meeting) for every intermittent meeting. Lets just cite the minutes page. PDBailey (talk) 04:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I know it was a bit weak to cite 2 sets of minutes, but I simply couldn't think of anything else to cite for that statement (I did check the intervening minutes). I can't find anywhere that lists past members. And I naively assumed primary sources were the best kind (when it comes to sources that verify objective facts)... Sorry if I deleted one of those fact/date things, I'm not familiar with them. Purple 21:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)