Talk:Bernard d'Abrera

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.
A fact from Bernard d'Abrera appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 31 July 2007.
Wikipedia
Archive
Archives

1


Contents

[edit] WP:BLP

This article has prompted email complaints identifying failures to follow our policy on biographies of living people. OTRS ticket 2007080210005311 applies. Guy (Help!) 14:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it permissible to learn what the complaint was and/or what is intended to be done about it. Also, it would have been less cryptic if you had cited WP:OTRS, rather than leaving us to search out this (fairly obscure) policy for ourselves. HrafnTalkStalk 15:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This is my first experience with WP:OTRS, so I have a few questions/comments:

  1. All of the additions appear to be unsourced. Does WP:OTRS trump WP:RS?These unsourced additions include:
    1. That BdA is a "an entomological taxonomist"
    2. That "His magnum opus comprises a series of works forming a synoptic reference to the four million specimens of butterflies and moths in the British Museum (Natural History)"
    3. That reproductions his company published were "under contract from the BM (NH)" & "under license from bodies such as the Royal Dutch Geographical Society"
    4. That he is "openly critical of the fact that PhD researchers must embrace evolutionary theory" -- which I might point out is not a "fact" but merely an (unsubstantiated) opinion, making this a probably WP:NPOV violation..
  2. The "British Museum (Natural History)" is not "commonly" known as the Natural History Museum", it is officially known by that title (by an Act of the British Parliament). Is WP:OTRS a license to insert fallacious information?

HrafnTalkStalk 16:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:OTRS:

OTRS volunteers may edit articles in the course of replying to emails. Such edits usually involve the removal of vandalism or unsourced derogatory assertions. Less frequently, OTRS volunteers handle copyright infringement complaints using one of the standard processes, or delete personal information from article histories.

This edit appears to go well beyond the "usual" or the "less frequent" rationales listed above and therefore I suggest that it deserves an explanation. HrafnTalkStalk 16:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

  • First and foremost, the email is very long and detailed and it has taken a lot of time to read it and reply. Second, the source for most of it is the subject himself. I have asked for supporting documentation. Third, to describe him as a "butterfly photographer" is a gross injustice; whatever you might think of his views of evolution (and do believe me, the view of most of the editors of the article on that particular subject is very, very apparent), he is not merely a photographer. He has the trust of the staff of the British Museum, and is clearly engaged in a scholarly study of their collections. His opinions do not detract from that. I change the para on his views on PhDs because it is a gross oversimplification, the quote is long and detailed and does not, in fact, cast aspersions on the PhD as a study outcome, but on the scientific establishment within which one must work in order to complete a PhD. One assumes that his views on evolution were at some point cited as grounds for his not undertaking such a course of study, but that is conjecture. The subject is most insistent that we correctly name the BM(NH), but everybody calls it the Natural History Museum, which is its current brand and style. Are you disputing this? Admittedly it's original research, as a reasonably frequent visitor to the museum. Guy (Help!) 16:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
    • That you would add material on the word of "the subject himself", in advance of receipt of "supporting documentation" seems problematic -- particularly when the additions include such peacock words as "magnum opus" and "synoptic" -- which really should not be used without independent citation.
    • You have not provided any evidence that to call him a "butterfly photographer" (as well as a publisher of such) is "a gross injustice", so maligning us for that description appears to be very premature.
    • That the original quotation about d'Abrera's opinion of PhDs was out of context (and I will admit, as I was not the one who added this quote, I had never previously looked it up for the context) is no excuse for violating WP:NPOV by misrepresenting his unsubstantiated opinion as to what "PhD researchers must embrace" as a "fact".
    • Yes, I am disputing the name -- see the final sentence in Natural History Museum#Separation from the British Museum: "Only with the Museums and Galleries Act 1992 did the Museum's formal title finally change to the Natural History Museum." I actually made a point to track down this Act to confirm this fact for myself some months back. HrafnTalkStalk 17:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The contracts between the museum and the publishing company are in the name of the British Museum (Natural History), which I believe is the legal name (or at least was when they were signed). You seem to be determined to make this article look bad. I am not comfortable with that. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
    • When were these contracts signed? My impression is that dA's photographing of the (then) BM(NH) and publication of a series of books based on this occured in the 1980s, before the official name change. In any case, such contracts cannot overturn an Act of Parliament. They are mere legal documents, an Act of Parliament is the law. And please do not remove legitimate tags from the article. Your edits, as they currently stand, are in violation of WP:RS & WP:NPOV. Had you made them other than under the auspices of WP:OTRS, they would have been immediately reverted for those reasons. HrafnTalkStalk 03:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Museums and Galleries Act 1992, Schedule 8, Part I, 1(1):[1]

The body corporate established by section 8 of the [1963 c. 24.] British Museum Act 1963 with the name of “the Trustees of the British Museum (Natural History)” and the museum known as “the British Museum (Natural History)” shall instead be known respectively as “the Trustees of the Natural History Museum” and “the Natural History Museum”.

I think it was the British Museum Act 1963 that established BM(NH) as a separate organisation from the BM, this Act merely changed its official name to reflect this. HrafnTalkStalk 04:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, a Google search for "Bernard d'Abrera" "butterfly photographer" returned four hits, "Bernard d'Abrera" "entomological taxonomist" returned none. So unless the entire internet is doing dA a "gross injustice", the latter title may well be self-endowed. Not conclusive by any means, but certainly suggestive. HrafnTalkStalk 04:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

  • You seem to be outraged that d'Abrera has a professional reputation. This is not really helping. Check Google Scholar, his Butterflies of the neotropical region is cited by numerous independent authors [2]. Please do not keep tagging the article, it looks vindictive and is really not helping me to resolve quite a tense situation, with the subject all set to sue Wikipedia. Nitpicking is not really productive either, you could have simply changed it to Natural History Museum and left the description ot that article, which is what I've done. Mr. d'Abrera notes that his contracts are in the name of BM (NH), but it's not that relevant, I guess. Guy (Help!) 10:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

No Guy, my "outrage" is at your arbitrary heavy-handedness. Adding unsourced material would not appear to be doing anything whatsoever to help avoid a potential defamation lawsuit. I would expect any comprehensive photographic documentation of the NMH's (large and important) butterfly collection to be heavily cited -- that is not however evidence of any substantive taxonomic research on d'Abrera's part. If you don't want me tagging the article then please remove the material that is in violation of WP:RS & WP:NPOV (per WP:OTRS I am not permitted to). And please read WP:OTRS more carefully before lecturing me on what I "could" have done. You have given little if any indication of what you are attempting to do, and little reason to have confidence that you know what you are doing, so it is hardly surprising that my attitude might be perceived as "unhelpful" to whatever it may be. HrafnTalkStalk 13:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

  • You seem to be assuming bad faith. Actually what I am doing is responding to an email complaint. Step 1: fix the problem; step 2: improve the article beyond simply fixing the problem. An example, very specific: the subject finds it offensive to be described as a "butterfly photographer". On the fae of it, he is right to be offended. He has published a wide-ranging review of the museum's collections, and this review has been cited by a number of independent publications. This goes well beyond mere "butterfly photography". He self-describes as a taxonomist; I have no reason to doubt that. If you can think of a more neutral term which can be sourced to an independent publication then that will be fine, but bear in mind that "creationismsucks.com" or some variant thereon is not going to pass muster. Naturally I have also asked the subject for further sources to substantiate his self-description, and have asked other OTRS volunteers for their input. I have reviewed your recent contributions. Much of your work seems to be ensuring that creationists get nailed. I agree that creationists are very often the subject of hagiography and POV-pushing, but that does not excuse us going too far the other way (although this is of course a natural human reaction). I don't think you'll find me among the creationist POV-pushers, though. You might want to look up User:Jason Gastrich to see what I think of that lot. Guy (Help!) 15:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Guy: I don't trust sources that I cannot verify myself (and even more distrust ones that I cannot even potentially verify). This is one of the reasons I haven't been substantially involved in this article, as there is very little in the way of WP:V & WP:RS information on it. You state that dA has told you one thing, another editor has previously told me that NHM has told him something else (that dA's involvement with the NHM was long ago, informal and has been blown out of proportion). So I have a problem with letting either side into the article without further substantiation. This is not assuming bad faith. HrafnTalkStalk 16:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

As the principle author involved, I can corroborate what Hrafn has stated above. I have substantial information, including the official position of the NHM itself on Bernard d'Abrera's involvement with the NHM, that supports the statement of Hrafn above.--Filll (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
As the principle and original author of this article, I have researched the subject of this article extensively. I have far more material about the subject than appears in this article. I stand by what was stated in the article before this recent set of edits. It had already gone through extensive BLP revision and is far more benign than what could be written, and supported with proper sources.
On the other hand, I understand the need to deal with emails purportedly from the subject himself. Allow me to address some of the material raised here and perhaps shine some further light on the situation.


  • BdA is a "an entomological taxonomist". BdA can call himself whatever he likes. However, he has no degrees in this area and no international professional standing as such. He has no peer-reviewed publications in this area. His beautiful books are in libraries throughout the world, and he is celebrated in this context. However, I have come across no evidence that he is recognized by scientific peers as an "entomological taxonomist". If a WP:RS and WP:V source for this can be produced, I would be very interested of course.
  • That reproductions his company published were "under contract from the BM (NH)" & "under license from bodies such as the Royal Dutch Geographical Society". I believe the first part of this statement to be correct, and the second part to probably be correct. I would welcome a WP:RS and WP:V source supporting this claim.
  • That he is "openly critical of the fact that PhD researchers must embrace evolutionary theory". I believe that this is correct, from the sources I have read.
  • The "British Museum (Natural History)" is not "commonly" known as the Natural History Museum", it is officially known by that title (by an Act of the British Parliament). I agree with this statement. By everything that I have read, including the original legislation wording, the official legal name is Natural History Museum and has been so for many years.
  • Third, to describe him as a "butterfly photographer" is a gross injustice. I see no way in which this is inaccurate, or derogatory. He has one of the most extensive set of publications of butterfly photographs in the world, most of which he took himself. He is a gifted photographer, clearly. However, he has not acted as a scientist in almost any respect, as near as I can determine (although I would welcome evidence to the contrary, such as single author peer-reviewed publications on lepidoperty in mainstream publications).
  • He has the trust of the staff of the British Museum, and is clearly engaged in a scholarly study of their collections. This is actually incorrect, to the best of my knowledge. I spent weeks investigating this. I have had an extensive email discussion directly by official channels and indirectly through unofficial channels about BdA with the National History Museum management itself. This is very very sensitive and potential career problems and legal problems are involved so I have not aired it here on these pages. I have not wanted to destroy anyone's career, or to embarass the National History Museum. However, it is clear from the National History Museum that this statement is incorrect. I very strongly dispute this allegation. This is a very biased characterization of a very sensitive situation. If the origin of this statement is the subject himself, it is self-serving at best. At worst, it is far far worse.
  • I change the para on his views on PhDs because it is a gross oversimplification, the quote is long and detailed and does not, in fact, cast aspersions on the PhD as a study outcome, but on the scientific establishment within which one must work in order to complete a PhD. The comments about the PhD in the article were based on published interviews with BdA himself. If the interviewers did not get the correct nuance, I apologize, but that is not the fault of WP; we can only go by what is published in WP:RS sources.


  • One assumes that his views on evolution were at some point cited as grounds for his not undertaking such a course of study, but that is conjecture. Maybe, but who really cares? This is irrelevant.
  • The subject is most insistent that we correctly name the BM(NH), but everybody calls it the Natural History Museum, which is its current brand and style. Are you disputing this? I dispute this in the strongest possible terms. This is a blatant misrepresentation at best. We have multiple sources, including the text of the legislation of the UK Parliament itself establishing the institution. This is beyond silly to acquiesce to this outrageous claim. Why should we lie to make BdA look better? The truth is the truth. Surely BdA knew that the name was changed 15 years ago? There is much more to this, which I will not place on these pages for public view.
  • That you would add material on the word of "the subject himself", in advance of receipt of "supporting documentation" seems problematic I would agree with this. Let's see the supporting documentation.
  • -- particularly when the additions include such peacock words as "magnum opus" and "synoptic" -- which really should not be used without independent citation. Although peacock words make me somewhat uncomfortable in general, some of BdA's works could be classified probably quite reasonably as "magnum opi" or "synoptic". The work of BdA is extremely impressive, but is not as far as I have been able to determine, of more than an expository nature, albeit extremely detailed and substantial. It is basically data, which is not cast aspersions on this part of the scientific enterprise. To document these collections is an extremely valuable and important function.
  • The contracts between the museum and the publishing company are in the name of the British Museum (Natural History), which I believe is the legal name (or at least was when they were signed). You seem to be determined to make this article look bad. I am not comfortable with that. Are you in receipt of certified copies of these contracts? Have you talked to both BdA and the National History Museum to verify their accuracy? When were they signed? BdA has been "involved" in various "contexts", off and on, with the National History Museum since the 1960s.
  • I have some negative statements about BdA's involvement with the National History Museum in my possession. These are from a variety of official and unofficial contacts at the National History Museum. If the desire is to get into a "pissing contest" of some sort, this could get very ugly. I have held back on all the derogatory material I have uncovered since I thought the article was a reasonable compromise, not reflecting the National History Museum, its employees, or even BdA in a particularly uncomplimentary light. I would plead to all concerned to try to help us resolve this by the least contentious route.


  • You seem to be outraged that d'Abrera has a professional reputation. This is not really helping. Check Google Scholar, his Butterflies of the neotropical region is cited by numerous independent authors [3]. Of course BdA has a professional reputation. Museums and schools worldwide have bought his books, which constitute raw data for the science of lepidoptery. What is the surprise here? Please try to approach this in a calmer fashion.
  • I would expect any comprehensive photographic documentation of the NMH's (large and important) butterfly collection to be heavily cited -- that is not however evidence of any substantive taxonomic research on d'Abrera's part. I completely agree with this statement.


  • An example, very specific: the subject finds it offensive to be described as a "butterfly photographer". On the fae of it, he is right to be offended. He has published a wide-ranging review of the museum's collections, and this review has been cited by a number of independent publications. This goes well beyond mere "butterfly photography". He might well be the world's greatest butterfly photographer, but he is a butterfly photographer. Most of the superlatives about BdA and his career either come from BdA or from interviews or reviews of BdA by other creationists. Show me a source that is not BdA, an interview with BdA, or a creationist that states something different.
  • He self-describes as a taxonomist; I have no reason to doubt that. I do. I see no evidence that he is a taxonomist. He has no education and no position as a taxonomist and no peer-reviewed published output that supports this description. It is, as you describe, a "self description". I would be willing to place all such characterizations and peacock terms in the article, but with the caveat that they are all "self-descriptions". However, this might cast BdA in a negative, although realistic, light. I did not want to write this article in an overly negative way, so I did not do so. However, I would not object if this was the outcome of this examination. Does BdA want to include all these peacock terms if the origin of these peacock terms is made clear in the article?
  • If you can think of a more neutral term which can be sourced to an independent publication then that will be fine, I will ponder this question.
  • but bear in mind that "creationismsucks.com" or some variant thereon is not going to pass muster. Where did we use a source like this? I find this suggestion of yours highly offensive, frankly. Please try to Assume Good Faith.


  • Naturally I have also asked the subject for further sources to substantiate his self-description, and have asked other OTRS volunteers for their input. I would welcome further input from the subject himself. I would dearly love to hear BdA explain some of what I have received from the National History Museum itself. I would welcome input from others as well. --Filll (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

To examine a couple of the specific edits:

  • His wife Lucilla served as editor and co-author on some volumes. This was removed. I can find a source for this. It is in the references. Why on earth would this be viewed as derogatory? Removing it seems unfair at best to his wife, who is reportedly a gifted editor and writer. Perhaps it needed a citation, but I see no reason to denigrate the contribution of his wife.
  • In fact, he refers in print to a Ph.D. as a "doubtful honour of mutual respectability" This is a sourced direct quote. I suspect I can find more than one citation for this. I do not understand what is objectionable about it, except that it might be a bit difficult for the average reader to understand. It seems that the quote it was replaced with is far more damning. Is it supported by the citation? Or just by his own personal declaration in the unpublished email?

--Filll (talk) 17:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

At what point does just writing this article the way BdA wants it to be written start to violate WP:COI? Does BdA's personal unpublished assertions about the NHM trump the official position and statements of the NHM itself? Does one only have to threaten to sue and then WP is bound to publish whatever falsehoods about a subject that the subject deems suitably complimentary?--Filll (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say the term "entomological taxonomist" is only true when you go outside of the normal definition of "taxonomist". But more importantly, I agree that there's no way that we can use uncited assertions from d'Abrera in this article. That violates NPOV and COI. I also don't understand why non-controversial, cited information was removed from the article. Guettarda (talk) 21:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

From Vitor O. Becker & M. Alma Solis. 1988. Book Review: Sphingidae Mundi. Hawk Moths of the World. Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 42:149-151 (a very sympathetic book review)

The first author met D'Abrera in 1979 at the British Museum (Natural History)...D'Abrera does not regard himself as a professional entomologist. He is, above all, an artist whose main interest is to express his talents through butterflies and moths, and at the same time to produce something beautiful and useful to others.
...D'Abrera clearly says that the main objective of this book [Hawk Moths of the World] "...is to provide, in a synoptic form, a modern illustrated systematic list of the known species of Hawk Moth (Sphingidae) of the World. This is not a revision." ...Professional entomologists might feel that D'Abrera's books only add to the confusion already acculumated. But, what about the people who do not have access to good collections, who cannot travel to museums around the world to examine material, who do not have access to an extensive library? ... In this case, it is preferable to have his work with errors than nothing at all.

Guettarda (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hill House Publishers

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

Nevermind, I found the other one. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 18:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I was able to find at least 3 entities called Hill House Publishers, if I remember correctly.--Filll (talk) 19:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Proposal

Rather than creating a hagiography full of paeans laced with superlatives to the purported genius of the self-beatified Mr. d'Abrera, I suggest we might consider another tack. Let us include all his self-congratulatory phraseology and superlative bloviating from this self-annointed "world's greatest butterfly expert", but source this material properly and accurately as originating from his own writings or his own mouth or from the articles written by fellow creationists. Let us include several of the highly uncomplimentary reviews of his work by the scientific community. Let us include a more extensive enumeration of his copious inflammatory anti-evolution statements, which border on irresponsibility. We can also explore in fuller detail the exact nature of his relationship with the National History Museum, with WP:RS and WP:V sources, drawing on both sides of this sordid and shameful story, not just BdA's account. I suspect Mr. d'Abrera would far rather have the original vague article than a more accurate article that truely depicts him in an NPOV and well sourced manner. On the other hand, if he wants to dance, then...--Filll (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Your use of bold and italics here is utterly inappropriate, as is your rhetoric. I do not know Mr. d'Abrera, and he has not invited me to use his first name, so I address him as Mr. d'Abrera. This is normal practice. You seem to be mistaking a good-faith attempt to fix perceived insults, with a bad-faith attempt at hagiography. It is not clear to me what motive I might supposedly have for boosting a creationist. Guy (Help!) 12:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I am afraid you are misunderstanding the reason I made "Mr" bold here. I did not mean it as a slur against you or your usage of the style. I have read about 4 autobiographies written by Mr. d'Abrerea, and they do read like hagiographies; sorry. And the phrase "world's greatest butterfly man" and similar superlatives come directly from d'Abrera's own self descriptions, both directly and indirectly. If you will do a bit more investigation, you will understand what I have written more clearly rather than jumping to unwarranted conclusions and inferences. I am not accusing you of wanting to boost a creationist. I am not accusing myself of wanting to boost a creationist. However, if BdA wants to have something written about him in WP which is similar to what he has written about himself repeatedly, I am suggesting we give in to his desires, and just make sure that the source of the wording is accurate. If he wants to boost himself, let's promote him in his own words, and just source these superlative terms and phrases accurately. Clear?--Filll (talk) 16:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Options

To summarise what I have seen above, we appear to have two major options in dealing with d'Abrera:

  1. We can concentrate on his stellar butterfly photography, and the superlative descriptions the entomological community gives for it, e.g. "Bernard D’Abrera who remains in a class of his own when it comes to assembling photographic plates of butterflies".
  2. Or we can give him what he has asked for, and concentrate on his pretensions to scientific scholarship, which it seems will inevitably lead to less-than-superlative descriptions from the same community (even de Vries characterises it as "idiosyncratic"), e.g. "Professional entomologists might feel that D'Abrera's books only add to the confusion already acculumated. But, what about the people who do not have access to good collections, who cannot travel to museums around the world to examine material, who do not have access to an extensive library? ... In this case, it is preferable to have his work with errors than nothing at all."

I would favour the former. Academia and the arts are full of brilliant people who are cranks about a particular subject. The balanced approach is to present the full glory of their brilliance to balance their quirks. The problem to date has been that the majority of editors involved (myself included) are primarily aware of dA for his involvement with Creationism. As far as I know, nobody with an entomological bent has attempted to edit this article, so such balancing material has not previously come to light. However the recent ruckus has brought to light some reliably sourced superlative statements on his photography, and I would like to see these added to the article.

Guy seems determined to follow dA's wishes and take the latter course. I do not think that this course is in either wikipedia's, dA's, or the readers' best interests. HrafnTalkStalk 05:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

A) There's room for both (presumably).
B) Perhaps there's a wikiproject that will help with the former?
Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 13:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't have much experience with Wikiprojects, but these seem relevant: Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography and Wikipedia:WikiProject Lepidoptera. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 13:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
It's a question of emphasis -- is he a stellar butterfly photographer who just happens to have published some books whose taxonomic merits have been criticised, or is he a very mediocre and untrained taxonomist who just happens to have taken some amazing photographs of butterflies? HrafnTalkStalk 13:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
He appears to be both. I don't know enough to know which is more notable for him, but it sounds like the latter. However, the Wikiprojects I mentioned might contain people with alternative POVs that can emphasize the former, perhaps. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 14:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I suspect that Wikipedia:WikiProject Lepidoptera would be the more helpful of the two -- photography covers a fairly wide field and dA's field of it is highly specialised. HrafnTalkStalk 14:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

More to the point - how are we supposed to proceed? The OTRS issue/threat of a lawsuit is something we need to take seriously. At the same time, it can't be used as an excuse to create hagiography or insert unverifiable (and apparently factually inaccurate) information into the article. I don't think that's what Guy has in mind either (despite the way his comments read). Some sort of clarification from him would be useful though. Guettarda (talk) 14:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that right now, the ball is in Guy's court (and his colleagues at WP:OTRS. And more fundamentally, in BdA's court.
What do they want to do? Does BdA want to threaten us further? Exactly what are the procedures when a subject of a WP:BLP wants to include unsubstantiated falsehoods about themselves in WP? I doubt strongly that BdA will be able to produce documentation for his claims. However, will WP buckle in the face of his sword-rattling?
I for one will be very interested to see how this is resolved. I suspect that at the moment, Guy and BdA are surveying the situation, absorbing the new information that has been produced and trying to decide what to do next.
BdA might very well not respond to the requests for information to back up his claims, since he might not want to open up a real serious can of worms. I doubt that BdA anticipated that WP had investigated him as extensively as it has. And we might wait for weeks before we hear anything, or we might never hear anything more. Give it a week, and if we hear nothing more, I think we should rattle Guy's cage.--Filll (talk) 15:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The difficulty here is that BdA and the structures of Wikimedia for dealing with threatened legal action are involved. It is not just up to us. It is really a delicate balancing of many different interests and claims and demands. I personally would like nothing better than to paint BdA with a completely honest and full palette. However, this might not be possible or desirable.

BdA really does not want to be known for what he really is:

  • a gifted and quirky butterfly photographer and publisher, whose publications are replete with errors and receive mediocre reviews at best, and often negative reviews for their nonphotographic content
  • someone who lives in suburban Australia and has for decades, and whose purported address in the UK is just a mail drop meant to mislead (as is his UK phone number)
  • someone who tutors young boys to sing church music
  • someone who often pretentiously calls himself "doctor" and "professor" even though he has no training, degree or position, and even though he has published vicious diatribes attacking the scientific establishment and those with PhDs
  • someone who has a friend or two at the National History Museum on Kensington Road, but nothing more
  • someone who never held more of a position at the National History Museum than any of the other thousands of visitors who used the NHM collections, aside from a couple of publishing contracts (which dozens of other publishing companies also have)
  • An extreme and increasingly vocal creationist and rabidly devout Catholic
  • someone whose greatest accolades originate from BdA himself
  • someone whose greatest fans are anti-science creationist zealots
  • someone who makes outrageous anti-evolution claims that are so extreme that they border on the comical
  • someone that the National History Museum would desperately like to distance itself from, for a variety of reasons

He was presented in this article in a sanitized fashion, with most of this and other uncomplimentary material elided. His biography was bland by comparison to the raw unvarnished truth, and some of the more negative material was only lightly touched on.

However, he took tremendous offense at being described as a "butterfly photographer" and publisher, which is what he is. What else is he? And where is the evidence that he is something else?

Instead, he frantically wants to promote himself in a pretentious fashion as some sort of great scientific genius who is taking a courageous stand against the entire scientific community and is widely admired and respected throughout the scientific world as the world's greatest butterfly expert with a permanent position at the famed British Museum. This might make him feel better, but it is incorrect.

However, I am not sure what will be the result of an alleged serious legal threat. This will be interesting to observe, in any case. Will a legal threat take precedence over real sources? Will a subject be able to bully WP to publish falsehoods about them, in spite of having no supporting evidence? Are we even sure that the complaint email originates with BdA himself? After all, if someone wanted to discredit BdA even further, this would be one avenue to do it. --Filll (talk) 15:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know BdA at all, but what you describe is consistent with him making the "serious legal threat" himself. I see no reason to doubt that. That said, I agree that the only effect such a threat should have is to make sure that all material (positive and negative) in this article is sourced. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 15:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to skirt the big issues here and suggest two small changes:
  1. Remove the portion of the text that alludes to his not having a PhD. To include such a statement, we'd really need something where he erroneously refers to himself as possessing a PhD. It's not uncommon, nor notable, for a scientist's academic status to be miscited by others who just assume attainment of particular degrees.
  2. In the portion about his creationist activities, it would be better to include his own words on the subject rather than include a block of text from a third party. Perhaps incorrectly, it may give the impression of a quote-mining exercise (i.e. that he can't be damned by his own words). The article already includes a few phrases that presumably derive from an appropriate anti-evolution screed.
Anyway, just a thought. --Plumbago (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The part about him not having a PhD is sourced, and does hint at his attitude and position, although it does not do full justice to the ferocity and viciousness of it. I think there is nothing wrong with asking the user to read between the lines, since BdA is a minor enough figure that a full investigation into his views is not really merited. BdA is an angry anti-science crusader, and including a tiny fraction of well-sourced material that hints at this should not be a problem. It is accurate, and there is a source.

Some of his published statements in his own words were removed, and what I assume is his own wording in a private email were substituted, unsupported by any sources or published evidence. Frankly, the substituted wording looks even worse, although I think BdA is so blinded by anti-science hatred and has such a huge chip on his shoulder he is not really able to perceive the situation in a neutral unbiased fashion. He is clearly angry at modern science and scientists, although they are the source of his livelihood. Even stranger, he likes to pretend to be a scientist and fraudulently promotes himself as having scientific credentials of various sorts, which he does not possess.

We could include a much larger selection of quotes in his own words. I think I compiled a short list of a few someplace above on this talk page. It might make him look even more extreme, and I am not sure if this would be to BdA's liking or not. It is hard to say at this point, since I do not think his judgement is particularly objective. In any case, BdA is not particularly notable, whatever claims he personally makes to the contrary. How much space do we want to devote to this topic?--Filll (talk) 16:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Filll. Thanks for taking the time to reply. I would still disagree regarding BdA's lack of a PhD. One source describes him as "Dr.", while the other includes a quotation in which he (ranting and raving) disputes the value of doctoral studies. As such, I don't believe the sources support the text - we simply don't need to have anything about his lack of a PhD qualification. It would be quite different were he to claim to have one but didn't, or if had one from a diploma mill like so many other creationists. Remarking on his hostility to PhD studies might be better placed in the "Creationist activities" section, since this is what drives his attitude. That said, his objections to the training of scientists could be viewed as secondary to his more notable anti-science views. My suggestion would be to not bother mentioning PhD studies at all, but to focus on the anti-evolution remarks in his own published works. Although I gather from this page that there are some WP:BLP/WP:OTRS to be sorted out still. Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 08:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The situation

Specific changes:

'''Bernard d'Abrera''' (born 1940) is a [[butterfly]] photographer and a publisher. As a [[creationism|creationist]], he has recently begun to include anti-[[evolution]] material in his books of butterfly pictures.

to

'''Bernard d'Abrera''' (born 1940) is an [[entomology|entomological]] [[taxonomy|taxonomist]], photographer and publisher, particularly noted for his books on [[papilionoidea]] (true butterflies). Since 1982 his work has been openly critical of [[evolution]]ism.
  1. While "butterfly photographer" probably doesn't capture the magnitude of dB's contribution, "entomological taxonomist" isn't consistent with the facts either. As various sources have said - dB is not a taxonomist, he doesn't not produce taxonomic works.
  2. While the "creationist" bit appears to be true, it appears to be unsourced, which is problematic in a bio of a living person. The replacement though isn't ok either - it's still unsourced. In addition, is he critical of evolutionism, evolutionary biology or evolution? From what I read here, I'm going to guess it's evolution in general, not the modern synthesis (which is what is now says). Still - we need a source!

Addition of

His ''magnum opus'' comprises a series of works forming a synoptic reference to the four million specimens of butterflies and moths in the British Museum (Natural History) (BM (NH), popularly known as the [[Natural History Museum]]), illustrated with over 66,000 figures.
  1. "Magnum opus" is a little strong for an unsourced statement, but overall I don't have an issue with this (except, of course, the obvious naming issue of the institution, which appears to have been dealt with)

Changed

Hill House has also published reproductions of naturalist [[John Gould]]'s work, copies of antiquarian maps, an atlas of the [[Dutch Indies]], and other historical materials.

to

Hill House has also published naturalist [[John Gould]]'s work under contract from the BM (NH), copies of antiquarian maps, an atlas of the [[Dutch Indies]], and other historical materials under license from bodies such as the Royal Dutch Geographical Society.
  1. Unless the are the original works, "reproductions" is the correct terminology.
  2. Regarding licensing of the historical materials - {{fact}}? Useful if true, but unsourced.

Removed:

His wife Lucilla served as editor and co-author on some volumes.
  1. Why? (Of course, the original was not explicitly sourced, but apart from that...why? I'm baffled by this change)

Changed

In fact, he refers in print to a Ph.D. as a "doubtful honour of mutual respectability."

to

being openly critical of the fact that PhD researchers must embrace evolutionary theory

and later

being openly critical of what he perceives as a requirement that PhD researchers embrace evolutionary theory
  1. Again, I am unclear as the why this change was made. Is this related to the OTRS complaint?
  2. The new version does not accurately reflect the purported source. The text which Dembski reproduces is critical of the role of evolution in biology as a whole, with quotes like "No field worker who studies insects, may now freely gaze upon his discoveries of insect morphology, biology or behaviour, without the taint of speculative Darwinism compelling him to colour his conclusions". What the quote doesn't say is that "PhD researchers must embrace evolutionary theory"; what he says is "He must do so for no other reason than being able to collect his grant and acquire his PhD or some other doubtful honour of mutual respectability amongst his peers". The original wording may not be the best way to capture dA's sentiments, but it's a more accurate reflection of the source than is the newer wording.

Since Guy isn't an OTRS volunteer, does that mean that the original email can be shared? If so, how broadly & under what circumstances? Guettarda (talk) 15:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I did a little checking. and Guy/JzG is indeed an OTRS agent in good standing. Currently Guy/JzG is travelling and so we are unlikely to hear from him while he is on travel. I also expect that a lot of this hinges on what BdA sends back to Guy in response to Guy's requests, if anything. I do not know if BdA is reading this page, or if Guy will harvest any of our comments to send to BdA for his response. Anyway, nothing is likely to move very fast here. Also, I had an OTRS agent check on the complaint ticket, and they were not able to find a legal threat in the OTRS record from BdA.--Filll (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


It's interesting to note that in his "brief biography" "Text reproduced courtesy Bernard d'Abrera 2007." he chooses to describe himself as "the British-born Australian Entomologist, Natural History photographer and publisher" and leaves claims regarding taxonomy to "Scientific philosophy"
"Since his earliest volumes, Bernard d’Abrera has steadfastly been concerned with the need for strict observance of the rules of philosophy in the science and craft of pure taxonomy, sensu Linnaeus, in the study of all orders of natural history, where the ‘species’ is the terminal taxon, because of its scientifically demonstrable natural fixism. He is thus an unapologetic Aristotelian in that he professes the axiom of typology, in which ‘like-begets-like’."
Which translates as he holds 18th century views on classification, and his taxonomy is not in line with current practice. We should follow his lead in including this claim with his anti-evolution position, and note that the beautiful illustrations need to be read with a separate guide to translate to modern classification. .. dave souza, talk 15:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the need for a citation, the same website's Recommended reading notes that his Linnaen classification does not comply with current standards, and in describing Concise Atlas of Butterflies of the World, d'Abrera ( 2001 ), Hill House, states that "The author, who is a devout Creationist, devotes over a quarter of the book to a fascinating critique of the Theory of Evolution. His thought processes make fascinating reading, and his arguments should certainly not be dismissed. Most buyers would have preferred if he had used the space to include more illustrations, but those who take the trouble to study the text in detail will realise that evolutionary theories are deeply flawed, and will welcome the scholarly way in which alternative explanations of the origin of species are explored. Highly recommended." and in the paperback version review notes that he "dispenses with the chapter dealing with evolution and species fixism." . . . dave souza, talk 16:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand a lot of the changes, and I do not understand Guy's purported connection to WP:OTRS. I am waiting until the situation becomes clearer. I think a lot of the changes that Guy made seemed to be counterproductive, and several even make the description of BdA appear more negative. The changes do not always agree with the sources. I am basically confused about most of these issues. To give Guy the benefit of the doubt, it is quite possible that Guy is not an experienced volunteer at OTRS, and so does not quite know what he is doing.--Filll (talk) 16:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Just in passing, I've tried to track down any publications by BdA in the Web of Knowledge. His surname does complicate searches so I've tried several variants, but have been unable to find anything that could have been written by him (unless, that is, he assumes a nom de guerre when treading among the evolutionist [sic] cabals that conspire within the ivory towers of academia). While this absence of evidence is not pertinent for the article per se, it may inform our decision on whether to accept the description of BdA as a taxonomist. Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 08:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, they don't index books. His books are widely cited in peer-reviewed publications - they're a crucial tool for identification in many cases. But they aren't taxonomic treatments - the reviewer (both critical and sympathetic) that I have found all make that point. dA's work is really most readily comparable to what we do here - we write about science, we use the best sources we can find - some of us a wonky enough that, given the chance, we would probably go and photography type specimens and add them to articles. The most diligent compiler of scientific information is not doing science. Guettarda (talk) 14:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Guettarda, I completely agree here. We should defer to how independent sources describe him. What I did was to fix a perceived insult by using his self-description, this is in no way an indication that his self-description is the term we must or should use, only that the subject was insulted by the belittling description we were using. Looking above, there is very obviously a considerable degree of venom directed against the subject. Unfortunately, this venom seems to me to be a little to evident in the article. I find Filll's language in particular to be troubling - why on earth would I "purport" to be connected to OTRS? That's assuming bad faith. I am an OTRS volunteer, and I posted the ticket number so that other OTRS volunteers could review it. Oh, one final thing: the subject categorically states that his wife was not co-author. Any particular reason we should not believe him on that? Guy (Help!) 11:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I do beg your pardon JzG/Guy, but I think you are not reading the text above (including the time stamps) carefully enough. If you will reexamine the record above, you will see that others claimed you were not involved with OTRS. Rather than follow their lead or what is supposedly a complete list of those involved with OTRS, I did some investigation. Subsequently, I posted a response that included "I did a little checking. and Guy/JzG is indeed an OTRS agent in good standing. Currently Guy/JzG is travelling and so we are unlikely to hear from him while he is on travel." I guess you missed that. I trust that the use of italics here does not offend you? If so, I apologize in advance for any unintentional affront.
On the subject of his wife's co-authorship, I am positive this came from BdA himself, either directly or indirectly (such as an interview etc). I did not just invent this out of whole cloth. If it is an error, we should of course remove it. However, I am reasonably sure that I read about her fairly substantial contributions. I will try to track down the origin of this statement. Of course, this does not mean that mistakes do not creep into assorted sources.--Filll (talk) 16:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


On Guy's final point, BdA's most recent butterfly book does include his wife, but as an editor, not a co-author. Further, a brief trawl of Amazon doesn't turn up any books for which his wife is a co-author. I did find one title which lists a co-author, but this was one Andrew Neild. Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 12:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


As far as I can tell, all of dA's books are out of print. This may affect the level of detail of information available on them. I could not however find any information on his wife's direct involvement in them (have tried addall.com -- which is the main metasearch of out-of-print books). HrafnTalkStalk 12:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Scratch that -- Butterflies of the Afrotropical Region: Part II - Nympalidae and Libytheidae by Bernard D'Abrera and Lucilla D'Abrera, ISBN 0947352457 / 9780947352455 / 0-947352-45-7 Justbooks HrafnTalkStalk 12:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I did not include that part about co-authorship from tracking down all of his publications. I drew it from either one of his autobiographies or from an interview with him or some other such source.--Filll (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


Guy: I am getting tired of your repeated violations of WP:AGF -- talking about "gross injustice", "belittled" & "insulted" without providing any substantiation whatsoever. I have yet to see a single positive reference to dA except in relation to his photographic work/illustrations. Likewise, I have yet to see a single reference to back up his self-description as an "entomological taxonomist". Every piece of evidence that has come to light has indicated that the original characterisation of him as being a "butterfly photographer" was an accurate one, and that his self-description is at best a stretch. We have brought "independent sources", you have brought nothing except his self-description (plus some WP:OR related to the number of citations of his work that is subject to a wide range of possible interpretations). As far as your connection with OTRS, it was somewhat vague, given that you are not listed on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS/personnel, and given that you have not exactly added clarity yourself with regards to the exact nature or boundaries of your authority. Your disappearing off for a couple of days just as Filll & Guettarda arrived on the scene wouldn't have helped things either. HrafnTalkStalk 12:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


<undent>I have to agree with Hrafn. Guy shows up and based on nothing but an email which is supposedly from BdA, makes all kinds of negative accusations and changes which are not backed up by any sources whatsoever. He seems to be extremely thin-skinned, which is not a good feature in someone in his position. Where are the sources? Where is the good faith? Where is the evidence? Guy, have you even read what we posted above? Please take this as seriously as we do.--Filll (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This is amusingly ironic. You demand that I assume good faith while simultaneously asserting that it is perfectly reaonsable for you to doubt my being OTRS volunteer. Perhaps you need to re-read WP:AGF, especially the bit about "Accusing others of bad faith". Sorry that I am a couple of thousand miles from home right now, I'll try to do better next time. Guy (Help!) 13:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

<undent>You were not on the list of OTRS people. People wondered about it. I checked. I found out the list is inaccurate, so it should either be updated, or removed. You still complained that people wondered and that I noted my confusion before I checked. What the heck? What are you complaining about? What on earth is going on here? This makes it a bit difficult to AGF. You do not think you have any part of this? At the very least, maybe you might think about adding your name to that list? Why had you not done so? Good heavens. Please try not to take offense so easily. We have nothing against you. You are just an intermediary and seem to be charging around here like a bull in a china shop and bring very little to the table here that has any substantiation. Not the claims of BdA. Not your own association. Nothing. (I assert that my use of bold and/or italics here in my post is not meant to demean or belittle or offend anyone in any way. Please accept my apologies for the use of bold and/or italics).--Filll (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point Guy. I was not saying that I didn't think you were acting in an official OTRS capacity. I worked out that you most probably were acting officially very early on in this incident (by the very indirect method of discovering that you were an Admin, and deducing that it was unlikely that an admin would fake OTRS credentials). I was only stating that it was not unreasonable for Guettarda to be originally confused (hence the italicised "was" above), given your lack of clarity on the matter. HrafnTalkStalk 13:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
And thank you for proving mine. It looks very much as if anything other than outright hostility to the subject is not to be tolerated; is this the impression you wanted to give? Have you tried applying an alternative interpretation, that when a subject says he feels that he's being demeaned and attacked that perhaps we ought to treat him with at least minimal courtesy? Guy (Help!) 15:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

<undent> Good heavens! Guy/JzG, please try to temper your responses. You think that BdA is not being treated with courtesy? Already in the email that was sent to you, we have uncovered at least two direct lies (about the name of the museum and his wife's coauthorship).

I have damning material about his relationship to the museum directly from the UK government. But none of this has been placed in the article. Under the circumstances, BdA is being treated with kid gloves here, which is only appropriate. However, I think he has not that much to complain about, and I think that you do not have much to complain about either. Sorry.

I am sorry if this offends you because I do not want to irritate or offend you. By your own choice of language here, you appear to be extremely insulted by everyone and everything here. What is the problem? Please, we are not your enemies here and mean no ill will.

I do not want to upset BdA unduely and I do not want a legal threat from BdA hanging over WP. I might note that your fellow OTRS officers were unable to find any evidence of this legal threat from BdA in their records. This might be the result of some error or misunderstanding and I am not accusing you of anything. I trust that my use of bold and/or italics here does not offend you or bring you unintentional distress; if it does, please accept my heartfelt apologies. --Filll (talk) 17:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

No Guy! What "is not to be tolerated" is your complete lack of reliable sources for your claims and accusations. Accusations + no substantiation = assuming bad faith. We have provided ample reliably sourced evidence that the subject's own views on this article are at times unreliable (cast-iron for BM(NH) vs NHM, substantial for being primarily known for his photography, more tenuous for other areas). Therefore we have a legitimate reason for doubting them. This is not assuming bad faith, this is following the factual evidence (per WP:RS & WP:V). HrafnTalkStalk 15:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I can verify the Guy is an meta:otrs volunteer. That is to say, he can read and respond to tickets. Not all volunteers are listed at the matrix on meta. I have taken a look at otrs:2007080210005311. I'll ask another volunteer to review the ticket and edits here. I don't have the time, unfortunately, this morning. Regards, Mercury 13:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This confirms what I had previously confirmed through other OTRS agents, as I had noted above days ago. Why is this being blown out of proportion? Please, let's all take a deep breath here. So the list is wrong- so what? Fix the list!!! This is a wiki after all. Did you know we can edit the material on Wikipedia ourselves? (I apologize in advance if this offends anyone. I am only trying to inject some levity into a situation that seems unnecessarily fraught with tension).--Filll (talk) 17:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Listing on the matrix is optional. Nathan 17:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that this "matrix" is the only information the wider wikipedia community has as to who is or isn't involved in OTRS. Therefore listing on it may be optional, but the confusion caused by failure to do so is non-optional, and the responsibility of the person who decided not to list. HrafnTalkStalk 17:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of which, I suggest we go with the article as it is now and make suggestions as to what still needs to change (I hope the lede is now acceptable to everyone). I don't think it matters anymore why the original changes took place, or who might have been offended by whom. (Do not take that to mean I think that civility is unimportant—just that talking about it too much is counterproductive.) What matters now is what needs to be fixed. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 17:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The problem Ben is that we still have WP:OTRS hanging over all of this, and particularly the injunction: "Do not undo the change until discussion has concluded." Because of this we need to move very cautiously on the article mainspace. This is the reason why, much as I have disagreed with some of Guy's changes (particularly the version he originally injected into the article), I have avoided altering or reverting them. HrafnTalkStalk 17:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to side with Hrafn here. I have not altered any of Guy/JzG's edits, although I disagree strongly with most of them. I also think that the article could be substantially improved by including the new information and citations we have. However, we have a figurative Sword of Damocles hanging over us. We are not really free to edit the mainspace here.

This probably has to be a negotiation with OTRS agents as intermediaries. I gather that Guy/JzG has sent an email back to BdA asking for more information, and in effect challenging and placating him. There has been subsequently more information for BdA's and OTRS' consideration uncovered. This is all pending, as we have to see what OTRS and/or BdA will do with all this.

For example, suppose that even though we now have multiple sources that BdA's wife was a co-author on some of his work, BdA still insists that she not be listed as a coauthor on WP or even contributing in any way to his publications on WP. This might be due to some idiosyncracy in BdA's psychological makeup (not hard to imagine, since we have copious evidence for similar quirks) or an assumed slight or an error or a misunderstanding or some current marital discord or confusion or dishonesty or whatever. Suppose that BdA still threatens to sue WP if WP does not remove all material that suggests his wife played any part in his publications.

For example, the books published with his wife as co-author might be the result of some egregious publication error that was not caught in time (a low probability event). Maybe a divorce is brewing, and BdA does not want to make the contributions of his wife easily available to the prying eyes of her lawyers. Maybe BdA is currently angry at his wife for some reason and wants to insult her. Maybe BdA has suffered a mental lacuna or lapse, and has forgotten that his wife contributed ever to any of his publications. Maybe his wife never really contributed, and he just included her as a nice gesture, which was inaccurate and he wants to correct this error. Who knows?

In any case, suppose that BdA still threatens a lawsuit and lawyer's letters show up etc. What does WP do? Do we give in and remove all mention of his wife's contributions? Do we dispute his claims and ignore his legal blustering and puffery? Does the situation escalate? Does BdA go away? Does Mike Godwin become involved? Does Jimbo?

This will be interesting to watch. I am not sure what will happen. I do not think we can just edit the article to suit the facts and the sources, however. This could take weeks or months to resolve itself. BdA probably does not yet fully understand the nature of Wikipedia and its policies, and is probably not yet fully apprised of what we know about him and how. So it should be entertaining.--Filll (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Filll, you've provoked another complaint to WP:OTRS with that comment. Would you mind refactoring it to be less inflammatory, please? Speculating on the status of his marriage, for example, is sarcastic, speculative and outright rude. Guy (Help!) 14:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The lead

On the topic of the lead, I can see how "butterfly photographer" might come off as slightly demeaning. Perhaps "naturalist photographer specializing in lepidoptera" or similar? (I am being serious here. Some might accuse this of "political correctness", but I see it as an attempt to be polite.) Basically what I'm suggesting is that it's the specific word choice and not the general description that is the problem here. My words might not be any better. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 13:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

<undent> Good thinking. His own bio starts "Bernard d’Abrera (b.1940), the British-born Australian Entomologist, Natural History photographer and publisher, is arguably the best known ‘Butterfly Man’ in the world." so that could form the basis of a statement. Entomologist possibly implies credentials that he doesn't have, and regarding his claims to be a taxonimist, he relates these to his "Scientific philosophy" of species "fixism" and from this sympathetic review he "follows the traditional Linnaean classification, rather than that adopted by the majority of other authors, who now place the Heliconiinae and Brassolinae etc as subfamilies of Nymphalidae. The genus and species names of many taxa also differ from those adopted by recent revisionists". In other words he holds to a taxonomic system that avoids any idea of common descent, and so is out of line with current ideas. That can all be summarised in the second sentence, the initial description could be of a Natural History photographer and publisher, well known as a ‘Butterfly Man’ ... dave souza, talk 14:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is the only mentions of dA as a "Butterfly Man" (only exact phrase admittedly) I could find on Google were to the small number (4 sites, one of which is to Filll's subpages here at wikipedia) repeating these exact words that he "is arguably the best known ‘Butterfly Man’ in the world." Additionally, his books all appear to be out-of-print, and mostly priced in the hundreds of dollars (meaning that the probability of their getting into the hands of anybody other than a few serious collectors/researchers are low). This is hardly evidence of him being "well known". Do we have any evidence of fame outside his very specialised sphere? HrafnTalkStalk 14:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
"Arguably the best known" is not really appropriate. We don't need to say that. Guy (Help!) 15:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The wording is dA's own: Bernard d'Abrera - a brief biography -- "Text reproduced courtesy Bernard d'Abrera 2007." But I will agree that this makes this "argument" inappropriate for inclusion, unless we can find corroboration of it from an independent WP:RS. HrafnTalkStalk 15:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I say we include his own words, and make sure we note that these words are his own. And in fact, we might even include all such personal self-congratulatory descriptions. Why not? If he wants them, let them go in. --Filll (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I also might note that the original description as a "butterfly photographer" was not meant to offend him, but to state the facts in the clearest possible and most accessible way, in a quick sound bite without a tremendous amount of pleonastic circumlocution and superfluous periphrastic prolixity (which BdA is quite fond of in many of his own self-congratulatory writings). I wanted something short and sweet and simple and accurate that someone could read quickly without digging through piles of verbiage. This approach is clearly not to BdA's liking (purposely avoiding the use of the name "Mr. d'Abrerea", which seems to give offense to some here).--Filll (talk) 18:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe I found a word choice that was neither too superfluous nor possibly offensive. I did not suspect that the original description was meant to be offensive, but I understand how a sensitive individual might take it that way. Hopefully my new word choice will be acceptable to OTRS. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 18:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
To clarify, I'm referring to this word choice:
Bernard d'Abrera (born 1940) is a natural history photographer and publisher, particularly noted for his books on Papilionoidea (true butterflies).
It's a combination of what was already there and the word choice suggested by dave souza. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 18:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consistency in capitalization

I'm of the opinion that when d'Abrera starts a sentence the d should be capitalized. We do this in a few places, but in other places it's lower-case. I'm going to make that edit now, but if you disagree, hopefully you'll at least agree that we should be consistent. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 16:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)