Talk:Thomas G. Barnes

Foundation?
It's not correct, IMO, to say that Barnes "laid a foundation for the Toroidal Ring Model developed by David L. Bergman and the gravitational and Universal Force Law work of Charles W. Lucas, Jr."

which (to my ear) implies that this was somehow mainstream work which scientists followed up on: like "Michael Faraday laid a foundation for the electromagnetism of James Clerk Maxwell" or perhaps (since Wikipedia does contain notable non-mainstream theories) "Mordehai Milgrom laid the foundation for Tensor-vector-scalar gravity".

Bergman and Lucas's models are unheard of except on their own Web pages; they are WP:NN, WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:FRINGE. You wouldn't begin the page on Rene Blondlot by saying, "Blondlot's work laid the foundation for Fred Smith's search for N-ray-based perpetual motion in his garage in Piscataway". Bm gub (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Barnes's work is regarded as pseudoscience by some establishment scientists, but not all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GregVolk (talk • contribs) 15:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Is wikipedia's official stance that ANYONE who questions macro-evolution doctrine is using pseudoscience, regardless of their credentials and evidence? Something really stinks here.

Besides, this isn't a scientific article, it is a biography. Barnes' claims should be fairly displayed without having a giant anchor called "pseudoscience" tied to them.

Is there really a scientific consensus that Barnes views, specifically, are psuedoscience? Or is it just because his claims oppose a current popular theory in academia? There should probably be a distinction here. 72.224.189.211 (talk) 22:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

NPOV
WP:NPOV, specifically, WP:UNDUE says "We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view."

Barnes' views of a young Earth are a WP:FRINGE view. However the article asserts his articles uncritically giving the reader the false impression of legitimacy. We66er (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Lord Kelvin
Lord Kelvin did not argue "for a young earth due to a weakening magnetic field", he (i) based his estimate on heat conducation & (ii) calculated a figure of "between 20 million and 400 million years." (Age of the Earth) HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Unnecessary Information
''Barnes obtained three degrees in Physics: an AB from Hardin-Simmons University in 1933, an MS from Brown University under Robert Bruce Lindsay in 1936, and an honorary Sc.D. again from Hardin-Simmons University in 1950. His detractors have questioned his credentials based on that fact that his doctorate was honorary''.[1]

Why is this bit about "his detractors" added? It is not referenced. The link only goes to Barnes' biography. Even if it was referenced it comes off as a biased, petty jab at this man, most likely because he is a prominent scientist that questions the doctrines of macro evolution. Wikipedia is becoming very predictable. 72.224.189.211 (talk) 22:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)