Talk:Andrew A. Snelling

_

_

Missing publication

This seems to be the same Andrew A. Snelling that wrote this summary of meteoroid flux in 1993. http://static.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Moon-Dust-and-the-Age-of-the-Solar-System.pdf. Might be it should be added to his list of publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.242.204.123 (talk) 10:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

A couple of issues with the article

I just flagged this page for its apparent lack of notability. If you don't believe that the article ought to be deleted, I would suggest expanding on whatever contributions that Dr. Snelling has made to the field of geology; otherwise, this page seems almost self-promotional. In the circumstance that the article does not get deleted, I would also suggest that you remove or fix the Info box so that it's actually about the subject of the article and not of an entirely different entity (i.e., Answers in Genesis). SomeEnlightenedNarcissist (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@SomeEnlightenedNarcissist: The recent publicity over his request to collect rocks in the Grand Canyon I think is enough to keep the article. I've added quite a bit more about that and removed the infobox. Doug Weller talk 15:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thank you for taking care of those items. SomeEnlightenedNarcissist (talk) 04:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Note on outcome as of now

The last thing we know is that the remaining items of dispute were over where and how samples would be collected. Issues of bad science in the 1st application had apparently been resolved, in the 2nd one.

We have no idea how that dispute was resolved.

The June 28 statement from AiG and Snelling's lawyers is bizarre. It says:

A letter to ADF attorneys from the park’s superintendent admitted the validity of Dr. Snelling’s proposed research: “The GRCA Research Permits program notes that Dr. Snelling's proposal is well-stated with methods that are similar or equal to standard scientific practice to test the hypothesis provided.” As a result, ADF voluntarily dismissed Snelling v. United States Department of Interior in federal court today. The park, via its attorneys, has issued both a research permit and a raft-launch research permit for on-site work in the canyon. Dr. Snelling’s next research project will occur later this summer.

They [cite the letter from NPS that is dated May 5'. The lawsuit was filed May 9. complaint. What happened between May 9 and June 28 that led to the suit being dropped? AiG misdirected everyone (it wasn't the May 5 letter, which they already had when they filed). So what happened? They must have worked something out with respect to the sampling methods and locations, but we don't know what that was. I looked for sources, but AiG isn't saying, and the NPS has provided no comments at all. Jytdog (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

This is interesting, but I don't think it is our job to uncover the truth of this. We should go by what the RSs say. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Regardless, Snelling and ADF were content with dropping the lawsuit. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

What matters is that people make claims like There was a lot of substance behind the lawsuit (and the government gave in to Snelling's demands diff . This is just not true. Jytdog (talk) 23:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if I consider this reliable, but it says: The Grand Canyon National Park issued this statement to me tonight: Grand Canyon National Park this week issued an administrative launch permit to Dr. Andrew Snelling for the purpose of collecting geologic samples under an existing permit to do research in the park.

The launch permit is for his Aug. 6-13 river trip and was granted to facilitate resolution of a legal dispute between Dr. Snelling and the National Park Service (NPS).

Issuance of the administrative launch permit neither implies an admission of fault by the NPS nor does it set a precedent for future issuance of administrative launch permits..

This is a bit in the weeds over "collecting permits" and "administrative launch permits", but it sounds like whatever new collecting Snelling wanted to do under the 2013 and 2016 applications was not granted, but the permit to "launch" (which they had already said they were willing to give in the May 5 letter) was granted. Jytdog (talk) 23:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I responded to this on the AiG article talk page. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

is genesis history

i found no independent RS talking about this. In-bubble creationist sources are not OK here. So far mentioning this is UNDUE. No problem mentioning it, if there are independent mainstream sources discussing it. Jytdog (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

User:1990'sguy please reply here, instead of edit warring. Thx. Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I didn't see the discussion until now. There are plenty of good sources discussing the movie, as I pointed out on the AfD. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:46, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

The post above is not about the WP:N of the WP article about the movie. Jytdog (talk) 20:53, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

If the AfD passes, we can definitely keep mention of Snelling being in the movie in his article. It is a notable part of his biography and we do it with essentially every biography. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Again, different issues. Please deal with the issue above. thx. But if you want to wait that is fine too. Jytdog (talk) 21:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)