Jump to content

Talk:John Hartnett (physicist)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contested deletion

[edit]

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because <it is bibliographical article as any other, and presents leading creationist cosmologist who managed to find such solution of Einstein's fields equations so that references to Dark matter and Dark Energy are not needed, produced lots of peer-reviewed scientific articles, incl. on red shift phenomenon, and developed a special ultra-high-stability cryogenic sapphire oscillator-based clock that is claimed to be one of the most precise in the world, if not the most precise, used for measuring the time dilatation thus experimentally confirming the validity of the Einstain's theory by ESA agency where he works on scientific ACAS project. His book on New Physics is peer-reviewed by former consultant to the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency. He also declares to solve Horizon problem in Creationist cosmologies, and in that article he is directly mentioned independently of this created article of mine about him.--Stephfo (talk) 23:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this page I'm withdrawing my effort to establish it wrt. arguments present in discussion. Thanx.--Stephfo (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

[edit]

Is Hartnett notable for anything at all except his CMI quackery? --FergusM1970 (talk) 14:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based upon (i) the dearth of third-party sourcing & (ii) the lack of articulation in the article of how he meets WP:PROF, most likely not. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 23:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is he very notable in the Creationism community? That might also support inclusion, even if PROF fails. After all Phil Barker is only very well known to the wargaming community, but the community is sufficiently large, and he sufficiently well known, to warrant an article. The Creationism community is I suspect large enough to warrant a few stars. Is he one? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He's not particularly notable, either for his writings or speaking/debating. In fact I had to do a Google search to confirm my suspicion (based on his being based in Australia) that he was part of CMI. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Elen: I also researched him for the last AfD. He's a minor player at best. Hartnett is rarely mentioned in the creationist community at all, except by CMI, the organization to which he belongs. The dearth of substantial third-party mention means he's not notable as a scientist, a creationist, or combined. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although he does appear to be the main collaborator for the Cosmological Relativity model. Very popular among YECs. Wekn reven i susej eht Talk• Follow 12:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But the article seems to be a too inclusive. It goes over his many achievements and awards instead of what he is notable for. Should probably have no more than a short paragraph or so describing his contributions to science not related to Cosmological relativity. Note: editors commenting on by comments should probably read both Cosmological relativity links. Wekn reven i susej eht Talk• Follow 13:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what comes up when I search for John Hartnett in AiG.
At the bottom of this page, you'll find some links to other Creationist organizations on him. Wekn reven i susej eht Talk• Follow 13:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like more slim pickings to me. Nothing really substantial enough to establish notability. Nothing that contradicts my conclusion that he is at best a minor figure in the creationist community. Certainly not in the top or second tier. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look deeper into the subject. Wekn reven i susej eht Talk• Follow 15:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any third-party RS coverage for his collaboration in Cosmological Relativity? Creationwiki, AiG & most (all?) "other Creationist organizations" don't make the grade. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem is that neither CMI or AIG are independent of the subject. He belongs to CMI Australia, which is a daughter organization of AIG. CreationWiki can't be used as a source for the same reason that WP can't. Creation Magazine and Journal of Creation are published by CMI. Answers and Answers Research Journal are published by AIG. Outside of his own small clique, Hartnett receives precious little coverage, and what little there is is not substatial enough to establish notability: announcements, promotional book reviews, blog entries and tangential mentions. Both in the scientific and creationist communities, this guy has generated extremely little interest. Nothing that adds up to a feature article in even a local newspaper. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you mean that kind of coverage. Sorry. I'll try to find a few third party significant mentions. If I can't, oh well. I was thinking more of importance w/in an idea (Young Earth Creationism). Wekn reven i susej eht Talk• Follow 14:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful of making the fishtank so small that any fish is too big for it. And keep things in perspective. Hartnett certainly isn't top tier in CMI Australia (Weiland is, for example). He's not even second tier (Batten, Catchpoole, Walker and Jerlstrom are).[[1]] CMI Australia is just a part of CMI, CMI is just a small part of the overall YEC community (AIG is the big cheese here), and the YEC community is just a part of the overall worldwide creationist community. I highly doubt that Hartnett makes the top 100 list of creationists worldwide, and he probably doesn't even make it into the top 200. He doesn't make the top 20 list of creationists in Australia. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's....significantly not notable. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hartnett would be struggling to get into the top 100 Young Earth creationists as well -- though by the time you got to the bottom of that number, they'd all have sufficiently low profile that making direct comparisons would become difficult. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He already appears (I think) on the Creationist cosmologies anyway. That probably gives enough information about him (I've come to the same conclusion regarding his notability). Wekn reven i susej eht Talk• Follow 10:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the attempts by anti-creationists to downplay what they don't like...!
"He belongs to CMI Australia, which is a daughter organization of AIG." He belongs to CMI? He works for the University of Western Australia. He does occasional speaking for CMI, and indisputably has connections there, but he doesn't "belong" to them. Further CMI is not a daughter organisation of AiG. Rather, the American ministry (AiG) was an offshoot of the Australian ministry (CMI).
"Hartnett certainly isn't top tier in CMI Australia (Weiland is, for example)." This is comparing chalk and cheese. As I've pointed out, Hartnett works for the UWA, not CMI.
"He's not even second tier (Batten, Catchpoole, Walker and Jerlstrom are)." Again, they all work for (are employed full time by) CMI. Hartnett isn't. Naturally they are going to have greater exposure than Hartnett in creationist circles (despite that, Hartnett would be far better known than Jerlstrom, as the latter works more behind the scenes).
"CMI Australia is just a part of CMI". No, they are not "just" part; they are the parent part, and the largest part.
"CMI is just a small part of the overall YEC community". Quite a large part, actually. They are one of the leading creationist organisations.
"(AIG is the big cheese here)". Debatable, and it depends on how you compare. AiG is in two countries (and almost defunct in one of them), whereas CMI is active in at least six. CMI employs more scientists than AiG. AiG is probably bigger in other ways, but CMI is certainly not a also-ran.
"and the YEC community is just a part of the overall worldwide creationist community." A very large part.
I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince anti-creationists of the notability of a creationist, because they've stacked the deck their way anyway, but these comments needed correcting.
Philip J. Rayment (talk) 10:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any particular suggestions for improving the article?Theroadislong (talk) 11:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe he just gave them. Wekn reven 15:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These are comments on talk page content NOT what is in the article?Theroadislong (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are comments on talk page content. That is, they are correcting misinformation and misleading information. If the original comments were irrelevant to the article content, then you could have criticised that. If the original comments are relevant, then my comments are too. If my comments are irrelevant because they "are comments on talk page content NOT what is in the article", then so is your last comment in this section commenting on my comments. Philip J. Rayment (talk) 01:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To answer the original question: Yes, He led the University of Western Australia Frequency Standards and Metrology research group in the development of the world's most ultra-stable cryogenically cooled sapphire oscillators used in VLBI radio astronomy; they are more stable even than millisecond pulsars. For those that seem to think he is not a cosmologist: I count at least a dozen papers on arXiv.org related to cosmology and/or astrophysics (the rest of his papers all seem to be related to the oscillators). And he published a book on cosmology. And his profile page at UWA says that he is a cosmologist. --Al'Beroya (talk) 10:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability tag

[edit]

I have removed an unexplained tag from the article, and been responded to with open uncivil aggression in the edit comment, and an unsigned template on my talk page.  The casual observer will note that the addition of an explanation was less effort that the aggressions.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Unscintillating for that obstinate WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT of the long-running #Notability section above. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Typical Hrafn MO...... He is so loved...... Mthoodhood (talk) 08:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unscintillating pig-headedly ignores the #Notability section above ... and I'm the villain? Have a WP:TROUT and get a clue (whoever you are)! HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why too much trouble because of a biography?

[edit]

If atheists or creationists want to follow their beliefs, let them live peacefully. Any biography is very important. It helps improve knowledge and understanding of many other scopes related to the person, and it also enriches our Wikipedia regardless of personal beliefs. 201.247.172.49 (talk) 01:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. New threads go at the bottom.
  2. Like everybody else rushing to the defence of this article, you appear to be studiously ignoring the thread discussing whether the topic is notable: #Notability, above.
  3. Your argument appears to be a variant of WP:PLEASEDONT -- an explicit 'argument to avoid'.

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go easy, Hrafn, yet somehow communicate what anonymous IP needs to know: good people skills. Wekn reven 15:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography

[edit]

Did this chap publish any books that we can list in this section instead of what's currently there? --Pete (talk) 01:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Hartnett (physicist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Education

[edit]

The information on his education is lacking at best. It fails to tell us whether he got a M.S. before his PhD, and fails to indicate what specialization his PhD was in or what his thesis topic was. It's possible to jump straight to a PhD program from a B.S. if you're particularly brilliant, so if he did so it should be noted. It's also possible to write articles and books outside one's field, but without knowing the information about his PhD it isn't possible to make that determination. Dismalscholar (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Hartnett_(physicist)&oldid=1257542000"