Talk:Russell Humphreys

Cooling model

Criticisms are given for his "Earth cooling model", but no description of it is given. Does that seem backwards to anyone else? ~ MD Otley (talk) 01:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Does seem rather odd, considering they are criticizing it...--Gniniv (talk) 06:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Organisation

Article could use some editing for better organisation, e.g., cosmological model, cooling, geology sections. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent Revert

Hi! You will notice that I recently changed Russell's infobox to clarify what he actually is (Creationist physicist).--Gniniv (talk) 06:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Per the sources we're using, he is a retired physicist. He currently works for a creationist organization answering questions. That means his profession is not 'a physicist'. I agree that Christian evangelist is not appropriate in the profession field either, but it should be changed to something which adequately reflects that he works for Creation Ministries International. An independent source specifically stating his profession would be great.

Regardless, there are other POV issues with your recent edits as well, including calling the models Humphreys described theories, which they are not according to the scientific community. There are one or two typographic corrections I don't have a problem with, but I reverted per those two (rather major) issues above. Jess ^talk _cs 15:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jess. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds okay, maybe we could call them hypothesis or ideas to not risk challenging what most scientists accept as cosmology.--Gniniv (talk) 06:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

With "hypothesis" you're again delving into scientific territory... and unless his efforts were explicitly scientific (by followed the scientific method, being properly tested and submitted to peer review) then this wouldn't be correct either. "Idea" is fine. I have no problem with that. Jess ^talk _cs 16:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I am adding a quote from Starlight and Time in the Cosmological Model Section...--Gniniv (talk) 06:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The quote is fine. However, as for the rest...

1. Again, we cannot call him a "retired physicist". Retired Physicist is not an occupation, nor is it what he's known for. He has a real occupation, and it involves Creation Ministries International.
2. Relativity does not state that "time is measured based on position in respect to mass". I don't even know what that means. The relativity articles should cover it rather well. As a larger point, please verify things you put in the article prior to putting them in.
3. Some of your content added is nonsensical. For instance: "the Earth is several thousands of years old (relative to itself)". I don't have the faintest idea what that means either.

Feel free to add that quote back in. However, as for your edits concerning scientific theories, please discuss on the talk page first. Thanks Jess ^talk _cs 07:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds decent to me, I agree with all your critiques and will add the quote back in...--Gniniv (talk) 05:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

As a compromise, I listed his occupation as being both a Christian Evangelist and Physicist. Any problems?--Gniniv (talk) 05:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

There's a problem with both, actually. He's not a physicist, and "Christian Evangelist" is not a profession unless he's making money evangelizing. Creation ministries international (his current employer) says that he's an Independent Researcher. I don't know what that means (and it sounds like he's just paid to be a name on their payroll), but if that's what they say he is, then that's what we should put down. I've updated it per the first ref. Jess ^talk _cs 06:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I just added some new content that expands the Cosmological Section. Any problems?--Gniniv (talk) 04:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

1. {{GAReview}} --Gniniv (talk) 04:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Any thoughts on how we can improve this article to GA quality?--Gniniv (talk) 05:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This article isn't anywhere NEAR good article quality. I've nowikied the GAReview template above and moved this to discussion. You should review the good article quality guidelines. Jess ^talk _cs 05:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I think if we were to get this to Good Article quality, we would need to do the following:

• Add Image of Subject (Anyone have a free photo of Humphreys?)
• Improve coverage (We have a ton of criticism, but the article does not go into detail describing what the criticism is criticizing...)
• Lower bias (I understand the majority of editors working on this article disagree with the subject's ideas, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't give him fair coverage...--Gniniv (talk) 07:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Gniniv: The article is not in any way shape or form ready for GA review. Please stop adding the GAReview template in. Editors who handle those requests are bogged down enough as it is, and this article isn't even remotely close to meeting GA standards. As it stands, this article is start class at best. Please check other articles in the GA quality scale, and review the good article criteria again. Jess ^talk _cs 08:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest reviewing the WikiProject article quality grading scheme, and start at the C-class level. Make sure it qualifies for that first, then work on getting it to B-class. Then worry about the GA requirements. —Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 17:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Why has discussion page completely changed?

While it seems a vast improvement and that people are not just bashing him and his theories anymore, my understanding of wikipedia's policies is that anything on a discussion page, except for personal attacks or obscene material stays. This discussion page is completely different than the last time I checked it, say six months ago or so. Did it change when this became part of the biography project?68.207.147.98 (talk) 03:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Archiving! Check the Archives...--Gniniv (talk) 09:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)