Talk:John Baumgardner

message: I tightened up the references providing archives, isbns, links etc. I tagged Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center ref for reliability MacNeill 2008 stated the organization appears moribund. I also tagged the Answers in Genesis for reliability. Burr 1997 states only a Ph.D. in geophysics. Is Answers in Genesis a reliable source for the degree also being in space physics? After going through the refs does Baumgardner meet notability? An article in US News from 1997, possibly a Newsweek article, a few papers with citations under 100, a trip to hunt for Noah's ark in 1985 seems pretty scant. He probably meets criteria as I suspect the Noah's ark trip got more coverage than is cited, his flood model Terra might be considered an impact. The Mendel's Accountant is only supported by the primary papers in a minor and a fringe publication, did anyone consider it important enough to write about it? If not it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Is the Letters to Nature department peer reviewed? I commented out the cited X times in the publications, they don't stay current, they are good for inclusion criteria, but none of the numbers were noteworthy. - - MrBill3 (talk) 13:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  References, notability 

message: This article was recently added to :Category:Pseudoscientists with this edit. It should be discussed here before being added back in. Actually, it isn't even mentioned in the article, and per WP:BLP, we would need a reliable source explicitly calling Baumgardner a pseudoscientist. Does such a source exist? I can't find anything. StAnselm (talk) 10:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think edit-warring creationists should be allowed to hold these articles hostage. I really don't. jps (talk) 00:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop your personal attacks. I removed category (again) per WP:BLP, which says "Contentious material about living persons... should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" (emphasis original). I have started a discussion, but if you think the category should be added back in, you need to provide a reliable source explicitly identifying Baumgardner as a pseudoscientist. StAnselm (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources are already in the article. You simply don't have a leg to stand upon. jps (talk) 02:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Which source are you referring to? The article doesn't mention the word "pseudoscientist". WP:BLPCAT says "the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources". That is not currently the case in this article. StAnselm (talk) 03:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That you cannot see that the content category is made clear by the article text and its reliable sources is the problem here. If anyone is a pseudoscientist, it is this guy. All of our reliable sources on him identify him by virtue of the means by which he is notable. jps (talk) 03:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You're basically just stating that he is a pseudoscientist. That's not good enough for WP:BLP - it says the source needs to be explicit. StAnselm (talk) 04:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

text: And according to the article, it would seem that he is most notable for being "the world's pre-eminent expert in the design of computer models for geophysical convection". Does that make him a pseudoscientist? StAnselm (talk) 04:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

text: First of all, the category was recently added, and has been disputed by multiple editors, so it needs to gain consensus here first. - please don't talk about "repeated removal of the category without consensus" - it was repeatedly added without consensus. Secondly, I dispute that "involvement in a recognized pseudoscience" necessarily means one is a pseudoscientist. Thirdly, WP:BLP still requires that implication to be made explicit. StAnselm (talk) 04:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: One person's odious objecting does not invalidate the existence of consensus. The reliable sources are clear that he is a pseudoscientist (no, US News and World Reports is not a reliable source for identifying who is a "pre-eminent expert in the design of computer models for geophysical convection"). The implication is explicit. By virtue of being an ICR "researcher" one is a pseudoscientist. The sources indicate that too. jps (talk) 05:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec) That argument is pure WP:SYNTH. For a WP:BLP, we need explicit sourcing, as StAnselm says. -- 101.117.111.177 (talk) 05:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

text: Your personal attacks do not help achieve consensus. The idea of an implication being explicit is a contradiction. And which source are you referring to that indicates By virtue of being an ICR "researcher" one is a pseudoscientist? StAnselm (talk) 05:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudoscientist category