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)

It certainly seems unbalanced as it is; if there is not going to be even a summary of his Earth Cooling Model then surely all that need be said is that it has received criticism? And as that puts it in line with just about every idea, it would hardly seem worth mentioning. The favoured option must surely be the presentation of the general idea together with it's criticisms rather than prune it all away to a point where the entry has nothing meaningful to say. Tarquin Q. Zanzibar 00:34, 8 April 2015 (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)

--Stupid. An independent researcher is precisely that-- a scientist on a payroll. Common for people not involved in religion. Even more interesting retired "scientists" such as Glenn Morton are not equally critiqued as valid or non-valid "scientists". Ideological bias is very telling. 71.173.17.85 (talk) 09:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

"An independent researcher is precisely that-- a scientist on a payroll"

No, there is in fact absolutely no reason at all to suppose that ""An independent researcher" must be a scientist or that they are "on a payroll". Anyone - with no qualifications or experience in any field - may be accurately described as "an independent researcher" for simply looking up a reference on Wikipedia; the term has no meaning and is a favourite of those who promote pseudo-science and wish to garner some credibility. Whatever Mr Humphries may once have been, he is no longer an active scientist, and this article should not pretend he is.

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)

Link Number 8 is Down

Link Number 8 is down — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.207.240.4 (talk) 17:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I am the webmaster for the site for reference #8, which has changed. THE NEW LINK IS HERE: http://www.cese.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/creation_physicist_humphreys.pdf

I do not know how to get this into the references section, so I hope somebody can make the edit!! Nmsrdave@swcp.com (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)nmsrdave@swcp.com

Thanks, I've replaced the URL. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Cosmological Predictions

Hi, Humphreys, in his creation reseach paper, "The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields" made several predictions that were verified. I wonder if this could be included in his cosmological model section? P.S. The link to his article for verification is http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/21/21_3/21_3.html LimpSpider (talk) 09:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

My sense is probably not. For that to be interesting I would want to see what the best contemporaneous predictions were, and tracking those down puts you well into WP:OR. If you can find a cite to work that has already investigated/confirmed this, then that cite might be appropriate to add. This is a gray area, so if after reading WP:OR you might want to ask for another opinion. GaramondLethe 11:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, but his predictions are a major part of his story and what he is currently going around telling people. Without that, all you are describing (all the article reads like) is a fringe religious pseudo scientist and someone who is not involved in serious science. Which is a judgement, not a description and does not adhere to the standards of neutrality that Wikipedia tries to keep to. You can't keep his criticisms without making mention of his assertions, its just not full and complete.(Supercarrot3000) 12:56, 01 October 2012 (UTC)

Does he claim the predictions have been been realized? If so you could report his claims, but as his claims, but not for the truth of the matter.--Africangenesis (talk) 13:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

He claims the predictions have been realized here- http://www.icr.org/article/beyond-neptune-voyager-ii-supports-creation/ and here - Humphreys, D.R. "Good News from Neptune: The Voyager II Magnetic Measurements," Creation Research Society Quarterly, (1990), and it has been claimed to be confirmed by Brian Thomas M.S. here- http://www.icr.org/article/mercurys-fading-magnetic-field-fits/. Some of the contemporaneous predictions he sites are: Parker, E.N. "Magnetic fields in the cosmos," Scientific American, 249 (August 1983), 44-54, see p. 52. Hood, L.L. "The enigma of lunar magnetism," EOS, 62 (21 April 1981), 161-163. I would think that this is enough to validate his claims, or at least include them in the article. YK102 (talk) 16:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

"I would think that this is enough to validate his claims, or at least include them in the article"

Come now, be objective...can we really say that an article in a religious publication can be accepted as verification? Isn't that like asking a Pastor if the Bible is the word of God and taking his answer as Gospel (if you'll pardon the expression)? As for including his claims in the article (as claims, not as verified ones), then yes, that would seem essential; after all this is not a scientific paper, it is an article about the man, and quite evidently his work for Creationist organisations in attempting to reconcile Creationism and Science is central to his public life. We just need to make sure there are no unnecessary overlaps, these are sensitive issues and it is important that there be no obfuscation or misrepresentation. This article is about the Doc, not about those who agree/disagree with him, after all. Tarquin Q. Zanzibar 00:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Do religious beliefs actually invalidate a scientific paper? I don't see any reason not to consider these publications as valid verification. They are peer-reviewed, in that peers (other scientists in the fields in question) have reviewed the paper prior to it being published. YK102 (talk) 05:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

"Do religious beliefs actually invalidate a scientific paper?"

Of course they can't. Only science can invalidate it. And no, they are not "peer-reviewed"; the term has a very specific meaning and it is not open to people giving it whatever definition suits their purposes. It certainly doesn't simply mean that other scientists have "reviewed the paper prior to it being published". I don't think you have quite grasped what peer-review entails. Tarquin Q. Zanzibar (talk) 10:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Then please, what is your definition of peer-reviewed? According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, peer review means: a process by which something proposed (as for research or publication) is evaluated by a group of experts in the appropriate field. The Wikipedia article on Peer review states it similarly. You seem to imply it is something else. Can you indicate a valid reason why the journals cited are not peer-reviewed? They seem to fall squarely within every definition of that term. The only possible complaint is that they allow people to present theories and papers that do not align with Evolution, but rather with Creation. This does not invalidate the peer-review process that every paper published in the journal undergoes. But if you have another explanation for what peer reviewed is I would like to hear it, and your source.YK102 (talk) 03:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. There is a great variance in the process each peer-review article submitted to journal publication undergoes. To claim that they all must follow the same process would invalidate many well-known peer-review journals across multiple disciplines and fields. Even articles on religion are peer-reviewed, and concepts interacting with religions are published regularly in multiple disciplines. All the peer-review process means is that other academics in the field have affirmed its worth as scholarly. Ncrissman (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

References cited

May be more reliable to put some source of the Sandia laboratories instead http://creation.com/d-russell-humphreys-cv, because papers and awards cited are not to be found in IEEE Xplore. The "source" is verifiable indeed, but its claims are still not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.210.12.6 (talk) 13:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute - Planetary Magnetic Field Predictions

This flag was placed 7 days ago, and yet nothing has been placed in the talk page citing what is disputed. Please follow the protocol or remove the tags. Thank you.YK102 (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any point of view issue. The sources cited are peer reviewed scientific journals, and an article by a 3rd party. Will remove the tags, as no one seems to have any issue or they would have put the details of their dispute here. 216.108.187.67 (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Planetary Magnetic Field Predictions

"According to the model, God created the planets with the atomic nuclei spinning in the same orientation" The work was not concerned with how the atomic nuclei came to be in that state, but the consequences that arose from that. The data on which those predictions were based were the already known natural Magnetic Fields of the Earth, the Moon, the Sun, and Mercury; he simply asserted elsewhere that these already known natural properties were in fact the work of God. The predictions would thus have been confirmed without the need for a God, so it does not seem relevant or appropriate here.

However, as the piece stands it does rather give the impression that Dr H's predictions re Magnetic Fields were some kind of confirmation of God. His ideas about the origin of magnetic fields being attributable to God were actually part of another work entirely ("The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields"). However, they were published in exclusively Creationist literature, so for that and the reasons given above I feel that it is inappropriate to include ideas into this section. Of course it is hugely relevant to article on the Doc as a whole, but I feel it is completely out of place in this section, and whilst I don't wish to start any issues, it does rather give the impression that someone is trying to shoehorn Doc H's ideas of Deity-created magnetic fields into this section for their own reasons.

Surely it must be possible to write the section in a manner which is not ambiguous or misleading, and remove the unwarranted appearances of a Deity - or move them to a more appropriate section?

n.b. I'm sorry, I realise that I have not expressed my point very articulately or succinctly here, but I hope I have conveyed my meaning sufficiently well to have it understood. Tarquin Q. Zanzibar 19:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, the Abstract specifically cites God, an age of ~6000 Years for the solar system, and requires that the planets were created rather than being formed from an accumulation of material as other theories have suggested. God is referenced 14 more times in the paper itself. The paper is concerned with providing a framework for interpreting the current state of the magnetic fields, combined with our measured historical information, and using a creationist model to give predictions for measurements that have not yet been made. The purpose is to prove that creation based science can provide predictions that fit better than evolutionary models. To quote from the paper: "Evolutionists often say that creationist theories are not "real science" because, they claim, such theories make no predictions which can be tested. But in this theory we have a counterexample to their claim. Here are some specific predictions of the theory which could be tested by future data from space missions: ..."

The entire purpose of creation science is to understand how the Universe and everything in it works when viewed from the position that God created it ~6000 years ago. To try to remove God from the picture is to defeat the very purpose of looking at the universe as ~6000 years old.YK102 (talk) 06:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Pseudoscience can not be used to reference anything on Wikipedia beyond its own existence. This is a rational publication.Charles (talk) 08:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Notability

Why is this guy notable? He seems to have done nothing much. --Pete (talk) 05:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Grammar

I won't comment on the so-called theories espoused by this individual, but I will note that the entire text of this entry is plagued with spelling and grammatical errors, and someone who cares should really clean it up.

A Greenskeeper (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Russell Humphreys. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080820010119/http://www.creationresearch.org/board.html to http://www.creationresearch.org/board.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 23:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Alleged

Can we stop using the word "alleged"? Alleged sounds biased against Humphreys concerning the Starlight problem. Let's use the words "supposed to". It sounds more neutral.

Alleged

Can we stop using the word "alleged"? Alleged sounds biased against Humphreys concerning the Starlight problem. Let's use the words "supposed to". It sounds more neutral.

99.181.16.30 (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Reference 3

Reference 3 appears to be a spurious link to a divorce lawyer’s web page 2A00:23C7:1F30:E401:D8AE:BF3C:9DE8:58FC (talk) 22:20, 11 December 2022 (UTC)