Talk:John Baumgardner

References, notability
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)

Pseudoscientist category
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Actually the article seems to indicate his notability is based on his creationist and antidarwinian pseudoscientific endeavors. The first sentence of the Biography section attributes his notablity to his "efforts to prove scientifically the Noachian flood" a clear explication that he is a pseudoscientist and that that is what he is notable for. His credentials as a geophysical computer modeler are supported by a single source from 17 years ago that is not an academic authority. If he is indeed "the world's pre-eminent expert in the design of computer models for geophysical convection" his work would be extremely highly cited and his models used and discussed in widespread scholarly work on the subject. A full paragraph supported only by primary sources discusses his pseudoscientific efforts to discredit the Darwinian theory of evolution. Of the sources in the article three deal with his participation in a search for Noah's ark, one a fringe book, one a primary self published source of his own letter on the subject and the third a debunking in a creationist fringe publication. The remaining sources discuss his involvement in creationism, a recognized pseudoscience. Thus he is clearly a pseudoscientist, known for his pseudoscientific endeavors and the category is appropriate. The definition of the category is supported by the sources. If the sources say one engages in psuedosience a category defined as one who engages in pseudocsience is supported and appropriate. Repeated removal of the category without consensus is edit warring and not appropriate behavior on WP. Tendentious conduct on talk pages is also inappropriate particularly when coupled with EWing. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * (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)
 * 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)

Continued edit warring has to stop. Build consensus before removing content supported by multiple editors with policy based rationale. Also see WP:What SYNTH is not. Common sense if someone is a "researcher" of pseudoscience one is a pseudoscientist this is far from synth. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm here because I saw the blocks on StAnselm's talk page (it was on my watchlist from previous disputes involving yet other users). Although I do think young earth creationism is pseudoscience myself, I agree with StAnselm that categorizing a living person a "pseudo-scientist" requires more than just "common sense". If a person is pseudo-scientist and their status as a pseudo-scientist is indeed notable, there will be secondary reliable sources calling them such, and until such sources are provided, we should not be re-adding the category, particularly over the objections of people with BLP concerns. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

While we might not describe Baumgardner as a "pseudoscientist", some of his work clearly is. I've made that description in the article now. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)