Talk:Robert V. Gentry

Wanting to know whether this guy is for real

please someone make this an article. I wanna know if this guy's for real at all. A Brooklyn Baby ^{(fake science is back!)} 07:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

AfD discussion

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_V._Gentry  (aeropagitica)  20:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Robert V. Gentry's Education

Columbia Union College, Takoma Park MD -- I do NOT believe that CUC has anything beyond Bachelors programs. I was on the staff there for 10 years... And they certainly didn't have them back then. Dr. Gentry was my parents age when I was in grade school. Checking the CUC website, they say that these are the degrees that they offer: Columbia Union College offers academic programs leading to the following degrees:

• Associate of Arts (AA)
• Associate of Science (AS)
• Associate of Applied Science (AAS)
• Bachelor of Science (BS)
• Bachelor of Arts (BA)
• Bachelor of Music (BM)
• Master of Business Administration (MBA)

So I think that we should find out the truth and correct the article. Emyth 20:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Honorary doctorates are awarded independent of academic programs. A college usually award honorary degrees as they see fit without regard to procedural matters. We'll wikilink to let readers know. --ScienceApologist 06:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Emyth is right, according to [1]. So I'm guessing either hoax on the part of Gentry, or simply some unintentional misinformation. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 02:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is not fair

Disclaimer: I am not a Creationist. In fact, I do not believe in the Creationist arguments. However, this article is not fair. Quoting an individual who says that Gentry's book is about "whining" is not a refutation of Gentry's central argument. In fact, such ad hominem attacks are counter-productive and may reinforce the conspiracy theories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.122.223 (talk) 02:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

1. New threads go at the bottom -- when you put them at the top they're likely to get missed (as this one was).
2. Re "whining":
   1. It is reported as Wilkerson's opinion, so meets WP:ASF & thus WP:NPOV
   2. Creationists frequently seek to portray themselves as martyrs, so it's hardly surprising that a critic might describe such autobiographical material as "whining".
   3. This was not the "refutation of Gentry's central argument" -- the refutation was that "the book is a source of much misinformation about current geologic thinking and confuses fact with interpretation."

I'll therefore be removing the POV template shortly. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 15:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

According to Numbers, a number of Gentry's fellow creationists say the same thing about him -- so really, there's no POV problem. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 18:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Notable

Is this person really notable and worthy of a WP article? I see only 3 items in the article: He wrote a self-published book, he filed a lawsuit that was dismissed, he testified in another lawsuit in which his side lost.Borock (talk) 05:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I've decided to nominate it for deletion. I will notify people involved. I also notified all the voters on the last AfD, except for the ones who retired from WP or got banned. :-) Borock (talk) 05:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems notable in my opinion. He seems to be selling alot of books and alot of people follow the author. He even has Scientists coming out to condemn his views. The article should not be deleted.[2][3][4]

NorwalkJames (talk) 12:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You have forgotten that Gentry was the leading scientist on radio halos research publishing his results in "prestigious scientific journals" (as stated in the article). He has also done research on containment of nuclear waste in granite and superheavy elements. This plus his involvement in the creationist movement makes him notable in my opinion.EMSPhydeaux (talk) 03:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

His church

I don't think his church should be mentioned in the opening sentence. It is discussed in the article in context which is good. On the other hand if his importance in the Seventh Day Adventist community could be shown that would be different. Borock (talk) 22:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The ties between his area of notability (creationism) and his church-affiliation are ubiquitous. It makes no more sense not to mention Gentry's Seventh-day Adventism in the lead than it would to fail to mention that of George McCready Price. Gentry became a Seventh-day Adventist & a creationist as part of the same conversion, he was affiliated with a Seventh-day Adventist college & (after Oak Ridge pulled the plug) his work was sponsored by a prominent Seventh-day Adventist businessman. Additionally, from Price onward, Seventh-day Adventism has had a strong involvement in Young Earth creationism (see for example Geoscience Research Institute). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 02:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. I just don't think it should be in the first sentence. If he is a notable Seventh Day Adventist then that should be explained in the article, then it could be in the intro too. Borock (talk) 05:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a sufficiently pervasive and influential part of his creationism that it should be in the first sentence. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I made a minor change in the word order, mainly because it sounds better to me that way, without taking anything out of the sentence. Borock (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)