Talk:Jonathan Sarfati: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Cewbot (talk | contribs)
m Maintain {{WPBS}}: 7 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 7 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject New Zealand}}, {{WPBiography}}, {{WikiProject Chess}}, {{WikiProject Australia}}, {{WikiProject Christianity}}, {{WikiProject Creationism}}, {{WikiProject Skepticism}}.
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|class=Start|listas=Sarfati, Jonathan|1=
Old discussions: [[/archive1]]
{{WikiProject New Zealand|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Biography}}
{{WikiProject Chess|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Australia|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=Low|messianic-judaism=yes|messianic-judaism-importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Creationism|importance=Mid|Young Earth creationism=yes|Young Earth creationism-importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Skepticism |importance=low |attention= }}
}}
{{oldafdfull|date=16 November 2006|result='''no consensus'''}}
{{oldafdfull|date=31 January 2007|result='''keep'''|page=Jonathan_Sarfati(2)}}
{{notice|{{find}}}}
{{archivebox|
* [[/Archive 1|Archive 1]] 15 Mar 2005 – 30 Nov 2005
* [[/Archive 2|Archive 2]] 1 Dec 2005 – 2 Feb 2006
* [[/Archive 3|Archive 3]] 31 Jan 2006 – 16 Mar 2006
* [[/Archive 4|Archive 4]] 16 Mar 2006 – 31 Jan 2007
* [[/Archive 5|Archive 5]] 1 Feb 2007 – 22 Mar 2007
}}


== Section Order ==
== Not happy about the current edits being made. ==


Hi Ed,
Firstly I don't like to see anonymous users (i.e. 58.162.252.67) make fairly controversial edits to a controversial page. I'm not sure what the official Wiki opinion on this. Let me know if you find out. I'll look too.


I disagree with your re-ordering based on the intersection of these two points:
In the edits by 58.162.252.67
* His notability as chess player and as author are quantitatively indinstinguishable.
* The brevity of the Chess section allows for better readability and article flow.


--[[User:Otheus|Otheus]] 19:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
1) "deleted CJB's misquotes about homosexuality (he used "homonazi" to mean those who want to punish those who criticize homosexual behaviour)"


:Okay, but I still want to know whether he's a notable chess player who wrote some books; or a notable author who's good at chess. --[[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] 19:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm quite happy for the editor to include this information. However I dispute that the whole paragraph should be removed. I think it is fairly relevant that Sarfati has made comments which would be grossly offensive to homosexuals.[[User:Christianjb|Christianjb]] 17:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


::After a google search, I discovered 80 times as many hits for creationist than chess player, so I reverted JoshuaZ. This, of course, will be my last reversion of the day! --[[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] 20:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
:Homonazi lacks intent to offend homosexuals, as feminazi lacks intent to offend feminists (or women, for that matter), as Nazi lacks intent to offend Germans. While is it probably true that the majority of homonazis are homosexuals, that the majority of feminazis are femanists (and women), and that the majority of Nazis were German, it lacks credibility to show offense of behalf of the whole for the overly sensitive and emotive reaction of the one (or the few). This is akin to saying that one who speaks out against terrorist Muslims insults all Muslims. [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 02:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


:::I can see there is a long history here, but I'm not going to dig through 5 archives! I perused one arbcom decision briefly and found this gem:
::Christianjb decided to reply on my talk page (moved to his, under 'Sarfati') rather than respond here. I'll leave it to the reader to discern why or if that reply has merit, but I still contend what I said above, and which Christianjb has not refuted. The affront to the one (or few) is not indictive of the insult to the whole, nor to the intent of insult to the whole. [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 02:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
:::*Jonathan Sarfati is a creationist who was trained as a scientist. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Agapetos_angel]
::::: Don't know where you found this, but it's not in the link you provided. --[[User:Otheus|Otheus]] 20:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


:::Go ahead and revert if you think I've missed something should be obvious to me. But afterwards, if you could point it out to me, I'd be much obliged. --[[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] 20:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
2) ("(though for work unconnected to creationism)" is not true. real scientists who are/were biblical creationists)


: *scratching head* Okay, for now, I'm not going to address the lead. I'm still addressing the article flow. Now on chess player vs. creationist, is there an arbcom ruling or policy saying that notability is measurable by google hits? I doubt that. Google results are skewed toward relevancy on the web, not toward relevancy in the media or in popular consciousness. But perhaps a comparison can be drawn. Find another chess player-author and see how many hits they get in proportion to each. JZ, what do you think? --[[User:Otheus|Otheus]] 20:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Another removal. It's factually true that Safarti's publications in mainstream jounals were for work unconnected to creationism. This is quite important. If I get a PhD in Physical Chemistry and then expound upon cosmetic surgery touting my PhD, I think people should have the right to know that my PhD is in an unrelated field. (BTW, I do have a PhD in Physical Chemistry! Just like Sarfati.)


Corrected link: [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Agapetos_angel]]. I apologize, I got the rfc mixed up with the rfa. --[[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] 20:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll give 58.162.252.67 a few hours to respond to these points. Otherwise I'll revert these two edits. I would like to see a compromise in which both points of view are reflected in the article.
: Okay, I have no problem with "creationist trained as a scientist", but as expressed by JZ and in previous conversations, I think it would be better to have "chess master" or some such ''in the same breath''. --[[User:Otheus|Otheus]] 20:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


::In other word's he's
Finally, I don't like 58.162.252.67 accusing me of "misquoting". There's really no need for finger pointing here. I fully sourced the quote and I tried to give it in its proper context. If you disagree, then let's have a reasonable discussion. Thanks [[User:Christianjb|Christianjb]] 17:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
:::as famous for his advocacy of [[Creationism]] as he is for his skill in chess playing
::--[[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] 20:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


:I actually have no idea if he's as "famous", but notability is not something easily quantified. At any rate, I rewrote the lead to hopefully reflect consensus here. Comments? --[[User:Otheus|Otheus]] 16:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm waiting for "advocacy" regarding similar edits by 58.162.252.67 on the [[Answers in Genesis]] page. If anyone has any comments about this then let me know. [[User:Christianjb|Christianjb]] 22:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


::Sure it is, counting the number of hits from a Google search puts the lie to that notion. If you have no idea what he's most notable for then perhaps you shouldn't be editing such a contentious article or least reading the archives and the related RFAR evidence. Your rewrite was less than neutral, elevating Sarfati as being most notable as a chess player and scientist despite his most notable activity, creationism, is easily verified as being his most notable activity as seen in the evidence presented here already. Please read the archives; this very point was discussed at great length and is long settled, or at least read the article. Had you you'd know that Sarfati has not been recently published as a scientist nor has he been competing at a notable level in chess but what he has been doing it writing about creationism. [[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] 03:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I have given anonymous editor 58.162.252.67 over 24 hours to reply to these comments on the talk page. No response so far. I am now going to reinsert the text which was removed. It is carefully sourced, pertinent and factually accurate. Without the possibility of such criticism this page is nothing but a vanity page. [[User:Christianjb|Christianjb]] 01:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


:This is unwieldy. Let's break it down.
Today we are again seeing edits from another (or possibly the same) anonymous user 156.110.211.130 removing text from the page critical of Sarfati. Once again the anonymous user has declined to discuss these points on the talk page as requested. In my opinion without such discussion about controversial statements, this page should be considered a vanity page.
:First, this diff[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_Sarfati&diff=104879640&oldid=103815250] by Steve Dafour first introduced Sarfati's chess playing on par with his CMI role. This originally passed your scrutiny [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_Sarfati&oldid=109491421 here] and in subsequent edits, so I did not see why you would object to it. And yes, please ''do'' read the archives, notably: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jonathan_Sarfati/archive5#Researcher.3F].
:Second, about notability. I think you (plural) are confusing notable for most recently known. This is a very important distinction. '''Google is not an indicator of notability'''. Google does not adequately represent material before 1992, before the WWW was conceived. His chess playing days peaked in the late 80's, but continued in the early 90's. Further, more recent material that is of a contentious origin, such as his writings on ID, than something the press generally has little interest in, such as chess. I would also argue that being a part of chess history is inherently more notable than being a writer for a fringe group of scientists.
:Third, '''I agree his PhD is not implicitly notable. ''' However, I was attempting to flesh out the Arbcom's summary that he is "trained as a scientist". I am trained as a scientist, but I do not have a PhD, so in that context, it '''is''' notable. Being "trained as a scientist" is weak and vague.
:You said, "if you have no idea what he's most notable for then perhaps you shouldn't be editing such a contentious article or least reading the archives and the related RFAR evidence." I have not been able to ''find'' the RFAR evidence for this article. I kept asking for it, but no one provided a link. As far as the archives, I did read a fair amount, but it sounded like siamese cats in heat more than it did a talk section.
:Also, please use the word 'lie' more carefully. I believe you meant "falsehood" or something similar. There was no intent on my part to deceive.
:I have no intention of getting in an edit war, but I believe it is not good style per [[WP:LEAD]] or fair to Mr. Sarfati to leave this lead as is for too long. I do note, of course, that it had been this way for almost a year before February. But my intent is to make the article better, not to diminish Sarfati's career in any way. I came across the article in early February, and only Ed Poor's recent change seemed to diminish his notability as chess player.
:--[[User:Otheus|Otheus]] 10:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


::Bios, indeed all articles here, are meant to represent the current state of affairs, so Google is indeed a good indicator of of a person's current notability and your reasoning that "Google does not adequately represent material before 1992, before the WWW was conceived" is a non sequitur. It is easily verifiable and not in dispute that the preponderance of Sarfati's work in the last ten years has been in creationism, not chess or science, so representing anything else violates the undue weight clause of NPOV. [[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] 18:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I am not asking for the content of the anonymous editor to be removed. I am asking for alternative points of view to be shown. [[User:Christianjb|Christianjb]] 05:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


:Though I don't fully agree with the above, would you consider this as acceptable?
:I'm sorry if [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] felt that I should have responded here instead of on his talk page. I'm happy for him to post anything on my talk page on this page. I am not keeping any secrets. Please go to my talk page to see my detailed reply- or if you want you can post it here. Thanks [[User:Christianjb|Christianjb]] 10:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
::'''Jonathan D. Sarfati''' (born [[October 1]], [[1964]]) is a scientifically-trained [[creationism|creationist]] and [[FIDE master|master chess player]]. His writings on creationism have attracted attention from supporters and opponents.
:This repositioning is done mainly for readability and accessibility, per [[WP:LEAD]] guidelines. --[[User:Otheus|Otheus]] 15:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


== External Links ==
:: And SHE would ask that you refrain from cluttering my talk pages with drivel that doesn't belong there. If you have a reply, post it here. You speak of respect, but show little. I have no idea why you posted a copy of a letter on my talk pages, but it has been removed for pushing your own POV agenda. Replies belong where they are associated, not spread like spam everywhere else. You were personally offended, that's your thing. However, it doesn't make the original statement wrong or POV because of your offense. (And how many men would be called beloved (agapetos) angel? Good grief, man) [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 01:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


Hi,
:Also if [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] could refrain from interspersing his/her comments with mine. Please respond beneath my comments. This shows proper respect for me and for Wikipedia. Thanks. [[User:Christianjb|Christianjb]] 11:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


I have removed 2 of the links on "opposing views." The first one (the AIC link) leads to "page not found." I'm guessing that it has been moved; maybe someone or myself can update this later. The other page (a science organision) does not mention Sarfati on the page itself. If there are "good" websites addressing Sarfati's claims, then they should be added. Does he have his own page on Talk origins?
:: If you didn't ramble on about several different points in the same section, it would be simplier to respond. As it is, a verbose reply after your verbosity would be more confusing. Using indents fixes that issue. [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 01:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


[[User:DarthSidious|DarthSidious]] 14:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Yoda
:::No- don't intersperse your comments. It chops up my text and doesn't show proper respect for the readers, for Wikipedia, or for my views. It makes this page much more difficult to read. Thanks, [[User:Christianjb|Christianjb]] 02:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


:The view of the NAS on creationism is indeed relevant to a creationist's article, and the status of Sarfati as a practicing scientist has previously been discussed and found to be wanting, so adding him that category is not warranted, see archived dicussions. I've restored the NAS link and removed the category, but let the removal of the link that 404s stand. [[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] 04:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Calling my response 'drivel' is insulting. I will not be responding to your criticism unless you can restate it in a less offensive manner. Please read [[No personal attacks]]. Thanks. [[User:Christianjb|Christianjb]] 02:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


Reverted to version that was protected to comply with existing consensus. [[User:121.208.181.37|121.208.181.37]] 13:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
:::I apologize for calling you by the male pronoun. Agapetos is not a common name in Texas, and I'm unfamiliar with it. Still- no excuse for assuming you were male. I don't know enough about theology to know whether angels are male or female- and I've never met one or ever seen any evidence they exist- please excuse my mistake.[[User:Christianjb|Christianjb]] 02:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
:::: Agapetos is Greek for 'beloved' (agape = love), even in Texas [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 03:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


: Although you are wrong, I can't really be bothered arguing over the "scientist" category. But the NAS link doesn't even mention Sarfati! Unless it includes a page on Sarfati himself, it should not be included. So I'm removing it. Do you think that any other page on WP follows your logic?
== Homonazis ==


[[User:DarthSidious|DarthSidious]] 07:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious
How was the sentence
:''This usage would be generally considered offensive to homosexuals given their history of persecution during the [[Holocaust]].''
POV? [[User_talk:Josh Parris|Josh Parris]]<span class="plainlinks">[http://tools.wikimedia.de%2F~kate%2Fcgi-bin%2Fcount_edits%3Fuser%3DJosh%2BParris%26dbname%3Denwiki #][http://parris.josh.com.au/resume/index.shtml :]</span> 06:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


== Letter to Nature ==
:The homosexual [[Ernst Röhm]] was one of the most responsible for [[Hitler]]'s rise to power.[[User:58.162.252.67|58.162.252.67]] 14:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


The submission to Nature was a paper, not a note. See the provided citation in article, [[Talk:Jonathan_Sarfati/Archive_3#Nature|and past discussion in Talk]]. [[User:121.208.180.8|121.208.180.8]] 18:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
How was the sentence
:''This usage may be considered offensive, given that adult male Roman Catholic priest molesters of female children are not generally referred to as "heterosexual priests" when referring to their crimes.''
POV, especially when 100% of of "pedophile priests" molest children? [[User_talk:Josh Parris|Josh Parris]]<span class="plainlinks">[http://tools.wikimedia.de%2F~kate%2Fcgi-bin%2Fcount_edits%3Fuser%3DJosh%2BParris%26dbname%3Denwiki #][http://parris.josh.com.au/resume/index.shtml :]</span> 06:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


I also have a problem with note. Nature has articles, letters and communications (or similar). Where is this note terminiology coming from? i have reverted back to paper which seemed perfectly accurate. [[User:David D.|David D.]] [[User talk:David D.|(Talk)]] 18:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
:(Let me point out here that in my comments below I obviously misread comments from [[User_talk:Josh Parris|Josh Parris]]! My apologies! It's late where I am. [[User:Christianjb|Christianjb]] 07:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC))


:Note is accurate, letters in Nature are not the same as a peer reviewed article in Nature, so we need to make the distinction. Also, please read the archives, this was previously discussed and part of an Arbcom case and has been long resolved and your reverting is not helping, particularly since our anon friend here, 121., is walking in the footsteps of a party banned by the arbcom ruling from editing this article. [[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] 19:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I don't understand your first comment. I'm pointing out the logical inconsistency:
*Priest molesting male child -> Sarfati labels "gay priest"
*Priest molesting female child -> Sarfati presumably labels "pedophile priest"


:: Actually FM, if I recall when this was discussed last time (prior to the Arbcom) the decision was made was that this was a paper. Letters are fully peer reviewed in Nature (Letters to the Editor or similar items are not). This is peer reviewed paper (it might make sense to note that Sarfati is one of many authors but that's a separate issue). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
:How silly. Some people are so sensitive. Sarfati's article made it clear what he meant. If a priest molests young men, as most of the offenders seem to do (and he pointed out that it's a tiny minority of priests), he is gay, not a pedophile. [[User:58.162.252.67|58.162.252.67]] 14:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


I am no fan of creationists but to describe a letter to nature a ''note'' as {{User|FeloniousMonk}} is insisting on doing here appears to be a tactic to trivialise the work. Basically he is creationist baiting and that will make them a pain in the butt for everyone else too. I ask again where is your justification for calling this paper, and it is a paper, a note? [[User:David D.|David D.]] [[User talk:David D.|(Talk)]] 19:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
You claim the second sentence is POV. Of course it is! There's nothing wrong with expressing a point of view attributable to a particular group in an article. e.g. Jews find antisemitic comments offensive. What is wrong is to attach a POV to the article. There's a clear distinction.
::Hey FM, i just thought you might actually think this is a letter to the editor? You do realise that Letters to Nature are not the same thing as letters to the editor, right? If not how can you edit war over something you have not even read? If you had read the paper you would have known it was not a note. [[User:David D.|David D.]] [[User talk:David D.|(Talk)]] 19:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
My dad was always justly proud of his letter to Nature [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=4938851&ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum (link)] I don't think calling these papers "notes" is at all helpful. [[User:TimVickers|Tim Vickers]] 19:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


Found the previous discussion on this topic [[Talk:Jonathan_Sarfati/dispute#D2]] which may be of note. The consensus there seemed to be that "paper" was preferable to "letter". [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
* Green eggs are disgusting - > POV
* Sam does not like green eggs -> A POV of Sam, not a POV of the article.


:Beware the anon. [[User:Jim62sch|<span style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#FF2400;">&#0149;Jim</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#F4C430;">62</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#000000;">sch&#0149;</span>]] 21:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks [[User:Christianjb|Christianjb]] 06:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
::Except in this case the anon is correct. [[User:David D.|David D.]] [[User talk:David D.|(Talk)]] 00:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


==Tautology in first line==
[[User:156.110.211.130]] removed the second sentence [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_Sarfati&diff=30194761&oldid=30194189 here], claiming a [[WP:NPOV]] violation. But I don't see it as one. Perhaps [[User:156.110.211.130]] or someone else can explain how it is POV? I would have thought ''This usage <s>may be considered</s> is offensive, given that adult male...'' would have been POV. The other sentence was removed without comment, so should be restored or explained (I presume that the same POV complaint applied) [[User_talk:Josh Parris|Josh Parris]]<span class="plainlinks">[http://tools.wikimedia.de%2F~kate%2Fcgi-bin%2Fcount_edits%3Fuser%3DJosh%2BParris%26dbname%3Denwiki #][http://parris.josh.com.au/resume/index.shtml :]</span> 06:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
[[User:Orangemarlin]], what is POV about the line I removed? My problem is that it is a tautology and adds nothing to the article. Every author in existence has attracted attention by their supporters and critics. If they hadn't they wouldn't have supporters and critics. And if they hadn't 'attracted attention' they would be sufficiently notable for WP. What does this sentence add to a reader's understanding of Sarfati? [[User:Ashmoo|Ashmoo]] 14:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


==In the creationism section==
:Thanks, I'll endeavor to restore the sentence making it as clear as humanly possible that this is a point of view expressed by homosexuals who object to being labelled as nazis and fascists. If anyone can provide a source showing me that homosexuals like to be called nazis then it should be included. I think the gay-priest/pedophile-priest label at least indicates a possible logical inconsistency. If someone wants to show me where a male child molester of female children is referred to as "heterosexual criminal" instead of say.. "pedophile" then I also support that information being included. I don't want to exclude information from this page. [[User:Christianjb|Christianjb]] 07:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Does self-reproduction = agamogenesis? It (self-reproduction) was a red-link (I unlinked it). [[User:Jim62sch|<span style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#FF2400;">&#0149;Jim</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#F4C430;">62</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#000000;">sch&#0149;</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Jim62sch|dissera!]]</sup> 20:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
:From the link he seems to be talking about molecules not cells. [[User:David D.|David D.]] [[User talk:David D.|(Talk)]] 20:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


That's what I thought, but "reproduction" kind of threw me. It reads much better now, thanks. (BTW, I added a link to [[Self-replication]]) [[User:Jim62sch|<span style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#FF2400;">&#0149;Jim</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#F4C430;">62</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#000000;">sch&#0149;</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Jim62sch|dissera!]]</sup> 21:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
:Once again, CJB can't read. Blind Freddie can see that Sarfati was referring to homosexuals who advocate jailing Christian dissenters to the pro-homosexual view. Nazis and other fascists also jailed dissenters to their politically approved view. Perhaps CJB sees nothing wrong with jailing pastors who preach from their religious text, the Bible, that homosexual acts are sinful. Yet CJB falsely accused Sarfati of using the term for homosexuals who objected to biblical injunctions against homosexual behavior.
:That's a good link, I've never seen that article before now. [[User:David D.|David D.]] [[User talk:David D.|(Talk)]] 21:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
=========
::Davescot banned him from uncommondescent! [[User:Midnight Gardener|Midnight Gardener]] ([[User talk:Midnight Gardener|talk]]) 16:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
::The comment immediately above was unsigned which is not only confusing, but shows disrespect to me and to Wikipedia rules. Please sign in future. Thanks [[User:Christianjb|Christianjb]] 11:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
::I don't respond to what I perceive as insulting comments. If you can rephrase your question in a sensible manner I will endeavor to answer your questions. It would also help if you did this through an account, rather than as an anonymous user so I know who I'm talking to. [[User:Christianjb|Christianjb]] 11:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


== Assorted Nitpicks ==


Just a couple of points to consider.


The statement that Sarfati has an advanced degree in chemistry seems inexact. Later in the article it states that he also has a Ph.D which is a postgraduate qualification but not a degree.
I felt that the following text should be removed.


Also if he has a Ph.D then should it not be Dr. Sarfati?[[User:Colonial from the Middle Island|Colonial from the Middle Island]] ([[User talk:Colonial from the Middle Island|talk]]) 11:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
:that a reader commended: Your Feb 6 response to the letter Objections to Homosexuality was so excellent I could scarcely believe it. Totally accepting of the person, totally factual and insightful. [http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/feedback/2005/0218.asp]
:Are [[Francis Crick]], [[Fred Sanger]] and [[Linus Pauling]] Dr. ##### in their articles? [[User:David D.|David D.]] [[User talk:David D.|(Talk)]] 16:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
::Dude look in the manual of style, NO one should be called "Dr so and so" in an article regardless of their academic accomplishments. If you see other articles that describe someone as "Dr" then fix it. [[User:Midnight Gardener|Midnight Gardener]] ([[User talk:Midnight Gardener|talk]]) 16:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
:::It was a rhetorical question. [[User:David D.|David D.]] [[User talk:David D.|(Talk)]] 21:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Jonathan
I do see Jonathan Sarfati referred to as "Dr. Sarfati," and sometimes refer to him that way myself. Just fyi. [[Special:Contributions/66.57.83.143|66.57.83.143]] ([[User talk:66.57.83.143|talk]]) 09:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Whoops, wasn't logged in. [[User:The paccagnellan|the_paccagnellan]] ([[User talk:The paccagnellan|talk]]) 09:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


== Lack of significant third party sourcing ==
I am open to compromise on this issue. At the moment I feel that this is unencyclopedic puffery. It's part of a fan letter to Answers in Genesis and contains no information pertinent to the discussion. I really doubt that an encyclopedia article should be quoting fan letters. [[User:Christianjb|Christianjb]] 10:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


''Way'' too much of this article is sourced to the CMI website. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">''[[User:Hrafn|Hrafn]]<sup>[[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]]</sub>''<sup>('''[[M:Precisionism|P]]''')</sup></span> 04:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
:Well, CBJ has misrepresented Sarfati severely, and this fan letter posted by another anon seems to balance CJB's bigoted insinuation that Sarfati hates homosexuals.[[User:58.162.252.67|58.162.252.67]] 14:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
*Added cites to chess [[Special:Contributions/76.20.213.207|76.20.213.207]] ([[User talk:76.20.213.207|talk]]) 20:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
**One of which is not third-party, the other of which makes no mention of his doing so at creation(ist) conferences. I have therefore removed the claim that he is "known" for this, lacking a third-party source. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">''[[User:Hrafn|Hrafn]]<sup>[[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]]</sub>''<sup>('''[[M:Precisionism|P]]''')</sup></span> 04:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
***I've replaced the sources and the text that went with them. Two sources mention him by name and state he plays blindfold chess, a September 2011 Tulsa newspaper article, and a website for an August 2011 Canadian conference, which advertised it as one of several special events for attendees. Both sources are recent and relevant, and should be considered valid, IMO. [[Special:Contributions/76.20.213.207|76.20.213.207]] ([[User talk:76.20.213.207|talk]]) 06:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
****And I've tagged them -- neither creation.com nor creation2011.com are third party, and the September 2011 Tulsa newspaper article ''did not'' state that he gives "blindfold chess exhibitions '''at creation conferences'''" -- only that he has given blindfold chess exhibitions at some unspecified location. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">''[[User:Hrafn|Hrafn]]<sup>[[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]]</sub>''<sup>('''[[M:Precisionism|P]]''')</sup></span> 06:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
*****Edit conflict: Other sources, from an observers at a 2005 conference: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/07/report-on-the-2-1.html, http://www.jared-lee.com/Photos/Summer05/AiG%20MEGA%20Conference/index.html http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpb.aspx?pageid=8589951934 [[Special:Contributions/76.20.213.207|76.20.213.207]] ([[User talk:76.20.213.207|talk]]) 06:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC) ETA: That's cool. I've already spent enough time on this. [[Special:Contributions/76.20.213.207|76.20.213.207]] ([[User talk:76.20.213.207|talk]]) 06:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
******None of these sources meet the standard required for a [[WP:BLP]], and only one of them mentions him playing blind chess at a creationist conference. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">''[[User:Hrafn|Hrafn]]<sup>[[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]]</sub>''<sup>('''[[M:Precisionism|P]]''')</sup></span> 07:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
*******Which is why they are here, rather than in the article ;) [[Special:Contributions/76.20.213.207|76.20.213.207]] ([[User talk:76.20.213.207|talk]]) 07:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


== Pseudoscientist ==
::If you can rephrase that statement in a non-insulting manner then I will endeavor to respond fully and honestly. Please reread [[No personal attacks]]. Thanks [[User:Christianjb|Christianjb]] 11:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


Cartwright & Theobald 2001 cited in the article, "In conclusion, creationists who use Scadding (1981) to support their contention that vestigial organs are not evidence for evolution are using a paper published in a minor, eclectic journal that was refuted soon after it initially came out. They cite someone who was wrong as "proof" that they are right. As such, it is another example of poor scholarship performed for the sake of pseudoscience." In an article that discusses Sarfati's publications in purportedly scientific journals. If one's practice in a journal article is described as "poor scholarship for the sake of pseudoscience" one has been described as a pseudoscientist. - - [[User:MrBill3|MrBill3]] ([[User talk:MrBill3|talk]]) 06:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
:::See the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Answers_in_Genesis#Edit_war Answers In Genesis talk page] for Christianjb's true feelings about the matter, complete with insults. Funny that he complains that everything he can't answer is an [[No personal attacks|insult]], while insulting in a worse manner elsewhere. [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 03:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


::The source does '''not''', in fact, describe the subject as a "pseudoscientist. Per [[WP:BLPCAT]], the category should be removed. -- [[Special:Contributions/101.117.58.97|101.117.58.97]] ([[User talk:101.117.58.97|talk]]) 06:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)<small>— [[User:101.117.58.97|101.117.58.97]] ([[User talk:101.117.58.97|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/101.117.58.97|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>
== Come clean ==


:::[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience]] probably contains more information than you ever wanted to know. Creationism is indeed pseudoscience, but to slap that label on someone is contentious and will offend a lot of people. Is it really worth starting an edit war over a category? It would probably be better for wikipedia if this category didn't exist. [[User:MaxBrowne|MaxBrowne]] ([[User talk:MaxBrowne|talk]]) 11:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I would personally like to know if Sarfati is an editor on this page. There's no hard rule explicitly forbidding someone from editing a page about themselves (though it is discouraged), but I would prefer that they didn't do it through an anonymous identity. [[User:Christianjb|Christianjb]] 23:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


::::I've boldly jumped in with a proposed solution on the article. Seems to be an ideal solution. -[[User:Roxy the dog|Roxy the dog]] ([[User talk:Roxy the dog|resonate]]) 12:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
: Would the appellation evolutionsux@yahoo be any more revealing? Most users, regardless of signing in or not, are anonymous. This has [[paranoia|nothing whatsoever to do]] with the article. [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 03:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


:::::Well, it agrees with my own opinions on the subject... but it may not comply with Wikipedia's [[WP:NPOV]] policy. From my point of view creationism has no more validity than [[Flat Earth|flat-earthism]], but I realise that a lot of people think differently and would be offended by such a characterisation. [[User:MaxBrowne|MaxBrowne]] ([[User talk:MaxBrowne|talk]]) 12:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
::Well, maybe you're right- I'm not 100% sure on this issue. I do know that no other encyclopedia (except maybe Who's Who) allows people to write their own Bio's. However, I do have some sympathy with the position that people ought to be able to defend themselves against scurrilous attacks on the internet- and they might prefer to do that anonymously. At the moment it seems like an imperfect system. I can see both sides of the issue. [[User:Christianjb|Christianjb]] 03:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


::::::WP:NPOV and WP:BLP require that we frame our articles from the mainstream view and are accurate to sources, not that we are nice to an article subject. Respectful, yes, and not perjorative either, which is why I don't like the label "pseudoscientist" in this context. I would suggest we try to incorporate the new category "Fruitloop" as another solution, or perhaps "Batshit insane ideas"? -[[User:Roxy the dog|Roxy the dog]] ([[User talk:Roxy the dog|resonate]]) 12:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
:::You know, I thought about this some more, and I think that it's just too difficult for me to make any more edits on this page. I restate that this page is turning out to be a vanity page about a very controversial figure, but there's little protection in place for the individual in question to adequately defend himself. I am uneasy either way. I will instead concentrate on [[Answers in Genesis]], where I can make most of the same points. I have no problem with Sarfati himself, who is unknown to me as either a scientist or a chess player, though he appears to have had some success with both. I only know Sarfati through his published opinion essays, which I feel is ok to debate- but still- it makes me uneasy. I personally wish Sarfati best of luck with his chess playing.[[User:Christianjb|Christianjb]] 04:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


:::::::Tagging people as "fruitloop" would be a little unencyclopedic, don't you think? Wikipedia's strength is (or should be) giving solidly referenced facts. Simply expressing disapproval in Wikipedia's voice is counterproductive, which is why I don't like pejorative tags. They are also potentially a breach of libel law. -- [[Special:Contributions/101.117.108.195|101.117.108.195]] ([[User talk:101.117.108.195|talk]]) 22:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
== Authorship list ==


:: Neither creationism nor evolutionism / Darwinism are "science" per se, but rather they are competing interpretive frameworks (worldviews) through which science is done. Science itself would refer to the basic facts that both frameworks are operating on. Example: the scientific fact would be the presence of a certain fossil in a certain stratum at a certain location. The interpretation would be either that it died there millions of years ago or that it was buried there as part of a global (Noahic) flood. For something to be "pseudoscience" it would have to misrepresent facts, rather than simply offering a different, albeit unpopular, interpretation of those facts as does the creation viewpoint.--[[User:Kanbei85|Kanbei85]] ([[User talk:Kanbei85|talk]]) 21:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
As it stands I think the sentence about "co-authoring a Nature paper when he was 22" sounds to my ears like vanity and puffery. Sarfati's name is fourth on the authorship list. This is hardly a great claim to fame. It's certainly something to be proud of, and it's worth noting that he published in an academic journal (given his current views). However, it's not a particularly notable achievement for an encyclopedia.
:::Your first sentence is not a fact, but your own, massively underinformed viewpoint. Since we follow reliable sources and not the random opinions of random people on the internet, the article stays the way its is.
:::Misrepresenting facts is exactly what creationism does: "Scientist X wrote Y" can be a fact, and it can be a crude misrepresentation. When a creationist says "Scientist X wrote Y", it is practically always a crude misrepresentation. Either, instead of "Y", the scientist really wrote "In earlier centuries, people believed Y" or "Creationist Z says Y" or "Y*" which sounds simlar to laymen but is really totally different, or X is not really a scientist, or X is an expert for something else and was talking through his hat, or it is some similar slight of hand. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 14:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


:::: Your comment here amounts to nothing more than a baseless, content-less accusation against (all?) creation scientists. A nice indication of your severe bias, and thus your motivation to want to keep this article non-neutral (see below discussion on non-neutral, irrelevant quote from Eugenie Scott). --[[User:Kanbei85|Kanbei85]] ([[User talk:Kanbei85|talk]]) 14:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I added the disputed "his name is fourth on the authorship list" as perhaps an indication that this isn't a particularly notable achievement (even for a 22 year old) as far as encyclopedia mentions go.
:::::I heard all that before. Yeah, we reality-based editors are "biased" because we don't accept whatever bollocks some user wants to add to an article. Astrology, dowsing, perpetual motion, creationism, climate change denial, whatever. See below. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 17:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


::::::Your opinion that creation science is bollocks does not belong in the content of Wikipedia, which is supposed to be a fact-based encyclopedia, neutral in point of view. It's sad that I have to even argue that point. This is why there is such a problem with bad content online today. --[[User:Kanbei85|Kanbei85]] ([[User talk:Kanbei85|talk]]) 19:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
This page is in grave danger of becoming a vanity page for Johnathan- who is certainly not a notable scientist with no particular scientific reputation. I'm not saying he wasn't a good scientist- he's just not famous enough for his scientific accomplishments to be trumped on a Wiki-page. I'm willing to bet that the first author of the paper doesn't have his own entry.
:::::::Creation science is clearly identified as an example of pseudoscience in [[WP:FRINGE]], because Wikipedia is a fact-based encyclopedia and the facts don't support it. This talk page is absolutely not the place to try and argue about that. --[[User:Tronvillain|tronvillain]] ([[User talk:Tronvillain|talk]]) 13:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
::::::::Arguing about creation science is not the point. The point is this article is not neutral or objective as a result of the pointless inclusion of a smear against one of Dr. Sarfati's works by someone who by all indications probably didn't even read it. This article is not about creation science, but rather is a bio page for a scientist, author and chess player. You have not given any reason why that non-sequitur belongs there, nor has anyone else. It's just a nice little jab against him because he holds an unpopular view that the editors here would like to ridicule.--[[User:Kanbei85|Kanbei85]] ([[User talk:Kanbei85|talk]]) 13:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
:::::::::Ad hominem arguments indicate that you aren't dealing with science anyway. Same with credentialist types of arguments. I'd object to calling it 'creation science'. It isn't science plain and simple. Same does however apply to Evolution. Both are philosophical points of views. And both are originally from theological debates. Still the background of authors has to be looked into. As far as Sarfati is concerned his ethnic background as well as his religious point of view shouldn't be ignored. It's clear that he had a Jewish background, but is he (still) a Judaist or not? Or is he a Christian? More specifics needed. [[Special:Contributions/105.4.3.134|105.4.3.134]] ([[User talk:105.4.3.134|talk]]) 19:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)


== Book sources ==
JS is known, not for his science, or particularly for his chess, but for making highly controversial statements. This Wikipedia page should reflect that.


Looking through the bibliography, I'm not finding sources for the books. Any help? --[[User:Skyring|Pete]] ([[User talk:Skyring|talk]]) 22:36, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Since Sarfati edits this page himself I think he has a duty to sign in, identify himself and answer this criticism.
This article looks to be an advert for book sales through CMI, from which most of the article is sourced (chess aside). --[[User:Skyring|Pete]] ([[User talk:Skyring|talk]]) 22:46, 26 December 2015 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
Thanks, [[User:Christianjb|Christianjb]] 23:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
:Neither is the fact that he is married with one stepson, or commentary on one of his thousands of articles, but it didn't stop either from being included. You claim it's worth noting, then claim the opposite. This seems more like an attention-seeking ploy than a serious complaint. [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 01:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


I have just modified 2 external links on [[Jonathan Sarfati]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=777398597 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
::I'm not sure this comment is worth replying to given its insulting tone. If Agapetos wants to restate that comment in a less accusing manner then I will reply. Thanks [[User:Christianjb|Christianjb]] 02:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to https://67.43.11.40/showpost.php?p=17980&postcount=35
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120322121835/http://www.croydonchess.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=nuUo7sinjIs%3D&tabid=64&mid=476&language=en-AU to http://www.croydonchess.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=nuUo7sinjIs%3D&tabid=64&mid=476&language=en-AU
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://members.optusnet.com.au/loganchess/montreux/montreux.html


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
:::Stop complaining. Presumably a former NZ chess champion is known in NZ chess circles. And it is worthy to note that a leading creationist has shown himself to be a capable scientist, otherwise the likes of CJB would say "no creationist is a real scientist".


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
:::CJB has been on a constant campaign to denigrate Sarfati, and has made a number of demonstrably false statements, such is is lack of objectivity. Even when corrected, he finds another excuse to denigrate.02:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 23:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
:::: If you want to sign your above comment I will respond. Thanks. [[User:Christianjb|Christianjb]] 02:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
:::::See the [[Talk:Answers_in_Genesis#Edit_war|Answers In Genesis talk page]] for Christianjb's true feelings about the matter, complete with insults. Funny that he complains that everything he can't answer is an insult, while insulting in a worse manner elsewhere. [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 03:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
::::::No- I have a policy of not responding to insult or personal attacks. There are many comments that I would like to respond to in detail- but I've decided that I should try and be consistent in my policy. Thanks. [[User:Christianjb|Christianjb]] 03:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


I have just modified one external link on [[Jonathan Sarfati]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=799824966 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
:::::::What a hypocrite. This is the guy who calls Answers in Genesis, and by implication their aupporters, "bunch of backwards despicable dishonest lying redneck fascist creeps." CJB likes to dish out the venom but can't take it.[[User:58.162.245.148|58.162.245.148]] 08:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080318234430/http://www.poisonpawn.co.nz/titles.htm to http://www.poisonpawn.co.nz/titles.htm


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
::::::And I stand by my right to my personal opinions about an organization. For the purposes of editing a Wikipedia page it doesn't matter to me what your personal opinions are. They're personal. As I explained in some detail- I stated my personal opinions because of the continuing insinuations of other editors. I knew that this would be opening myself up to numerous cheap shots from anonymous editors. Please respect my rights to my opinions as I respect your rights to your opinions. I am not asking to convert anyone or offend anyone here. I don't believe anything I have said is any worse than the pages and pages of comment I've read on Answers in Genesis (some of it by Sarfati) regarding people with my politics. I assume that you being a supporter would agree with AiG- in which case you assume that people like me are on a mission to attack Christianity, increase abortions, increase murder, promote fascism etc. etc. Well it works both ways Mr/s anon reviewer, I find AiG's opinions offensive and you probably find my personal opinions offensive. I ain't being no hypocrite about this. [[User:Christianjb|Christianjb]] 09:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
:::Also, as I said above (below?) I'm quitting this page. I wish all the anonymous editors here good luck and I wish Sarfati good luck with his chess. I'll probably see you on the AiG page. [[User:Christianjb|Christianjb]] 09:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
== Trivia ==


Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 02:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
I suggest we start a trivia section. I've seen these in many other entries. I used to post a lot at the Theology Web forum and many people thought Dr. Sarfati posted as a user name "Socrates." In fact, the jury is still out. Any thoughts? --[[User:Jason Gastrich|Jason Gastrich]] 10:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


==Motion To Strike==
:Unsigned makes the odd suggestion that unsubstantiated rumour and innuendo belong in an encyclopedic article. A "Trivia" section should include tidbits like "Dr Sarfati likes playing Uno in his spare time". Gossip, regardless of the standing of this so-called 'jury', belongs in supermarket rags, not on Wikipedia. [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 10:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
{{atop|result=Closing per [[WP:NOTFORUM]], [[WP:LASTWORD]]. This is a pointless circular discussion which will not result in any article improvements. Clear consensus is that including the quoted text is appropriate. [[User:MaxBrowne2|MaxBrowne2]] ([[User talk:MaxBrowne2|talk]]) 23:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)}}
The following quote,


' Eugenie Scott and Glenn Branch of the National Center for Science Education called Sarfati's Refuting Evolution a "crude piece of propaganda". '
::Oops! Now, I signed. Sorry. It's REALLY late. --[[User:Jason Gastrich|Jason Gastrich]] 10:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


Is both irrelevant here and a clear violation of neutral tone. There is no reason to include this quip here, and certainly we could get into a long edit war if we wanted to start quoting things for and against Dr. Sarfati's work on here. I am moving to have this sentence removed completely. If no one responds I will take this action myself.
== Some critics ==


--[[User:Kanbei85|Kanbei85]] ([[User talk:Kanbei85|talk]]) 12:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Kanbei85
Avoiding [[original research]] and POV, critics must resolve the 'some critics' in the 'Scientist?' section. Text preserved below for addition of reputable sources: [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 11:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
:No. Reliable source, true sentence. See [[WP:FRINGE]]. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 14:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


:: Whether the source is reliable is not the point (and that is debatable based on your viewpoint). The point is that there is no reason to include it and it makes the article non-neutral. We might just as well include a quote by some other scientist about how great the work is! Whether Eugenie Scott likes 'Refuting Evolution' has no place in this article. Merely saying it is a 'true sentence' does not defend its inclusion here.--[[User:Kanbei85|Kanbei85]] ([[User talk:Kanbei85|talk]]) 14:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Postscript: Edited this discussion for clarification of complaint. The entire section is based on what 'critics' and 'some critics' supposedly say, unattributed accusations that lack reputable sourcing, thereby failing the "no [[original research]]" criterion [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 21:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
:::I've restored it. We aren't trying to be neutral, we are trying to have a [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]] " which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." As we are also a mainstream encyclopedia, our articles on fringe subjects are always meant to make it clear that the subject is fringe. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 16:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


:::::Ah, my comments are clearly a waste of time because you've been told this more than once, but still choose to ignore it. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 16:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I've removed the preserved text because it can easily be found and distracts from the discussion where my point was split up by another comment [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 07:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


::: Wikipedia is clearly biased enough against the creation viewpoint as it is; after all, since Sarfati's page links to the Creation Science page, which overtly and falsely calls it 'pseudoscience', I think it is clear enough that this topic is 'fringe'. There is simply no justifiable reason to include a random negative quote there by Eugenie Scott-- a complete non-sequitur! Just a blatant attempt to bash and downplay Dr. Sarfati's work in a supposedly 'neutral-point-of-view' encyclopedia. I maintain this sentence is out of place. If you want to make it clear the topic is 'fringe', there is a way to do that while still maintaining neutral tone and not calling Dr. Sarfati's work crude propaganda, which it is not. For example, a statement like, "Dr. Sarfati's views run contrary to mainstream scientific consensus". --[[User:Kanbei85|Kanbei85]] ([[User talk:Kanbei85|talk]]) 16:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
:: A very important point. "Content must not violate any copyright and ''must be verifiable''." Unnamed critics, supporters, claims about arrogance etc. clearly violate this rule. Also, appeals to what the "scientific community" say etc., or an editor's own opinion of what they say, seem to violate the Wiki rules against [[original research]]. Agapetos angel is certainly right, and opponents should put their personal biases aside and deal with the ''actual wiki rules.''
::::Your opinion on Sarfati's crude propaganda does not matter. Scott's does. Bye. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 17:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
:: "Some critics" are [[Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words|weasel words]], and as such, to be avoided [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words#Examples].[[User:220.245.180.133|220.245.180.133]] 09:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
::::: This is not about anyone's opinion of Sarfati or his work! This is about maintaining a semblance of neutrality as an '''encyclopedia''', which is supposed to be an unbiased source of information. If the concern is that the page must "make it clear" that it is a so-called fringe view, that can be achieved in a neutral way. Having that quote there is just terrible writing for an encyclopedia article. It reads more like a web article from a partisan newspaper site.--[[User:Kanbei85|Kanbei85]] ([[User talk:Kanbei85|talk]]) 17:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

::::::Quoting an accurate description of a fringe theory is no in any sense a violation of [[WP:NPOV]]. --[[User:Tronvillain|tronvillain]] ([[User talk:Tronvillain|talk]]) 19:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
: Actually it was written because some of the creationists here were trying to describe him as a scientist, when he does no [[scientific research]] into creation (zilch, nada). Actually, the criticism section does need beefing up though as it's not up to [[WP:NPOV#pseudoscience]], yet. Anyway, the idea important because Sarfati is known especially for his [[arrogance]] and a using his PhD as an [[appeal to authority]], because the basis of that authority (scienctific research backing into creation) is so lamentably missing. &mdash; [[user:Duncharris|Dunc]]|[[User talk:duncharris|&#9786;]] 21:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
::::::: 1) There is nothing accurate about that description. Have you read Refuting Evolution? It is well-researched and well-argued. Nothing crude about it, and it is not propaganda, either. I strongly doubt Eugenie Scott read the book herself. 2) It is still a non-sequitur. What Eugenie Scott thinks about Refuting Evolution does not belong in this supposedly neutral, fact-based section on Dr. Sarfati's work. While it is a 'fact' that Scott made that claim (I am assuming), the content of her claim is only an opinion, not a fact. --[[User:Kanbei85|Kanbei85]] ([[User talk:Kanbei85|talk]]) 19:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
:: That makes it [[original research]], Duncharris, and validates the point that it doesn't belong in this article. Until the 'some critics' are sourced, it should not be included. [[User:58.162.252.236|58.162.252.236]] 23:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
::::::::Creationism is well established to be a pseudoscience. Removing valid criticism of a creationist text is clearly [[WP:PROFRINGE]]. And you realize that when you're reverted, you're supposed to discuss and see what the consensus is before undoing the revert, right?--[[User:Tronvillain|tronvillain]] ([[User talk:Tronvillain|talk]]) 19:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
::: The 'some critics' of this entire section are unsourced, and thereby [[original research]]. Duncharris' attempt to silence me by banning me in opposition to Wikipedia rules [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3RR#Administrator_involvement] (being in the edits and making judgments anyway, banning on the third revert instead of a fourth, etc.) does not change this fact. The text is reserved above for editing to meet Wikipedia guidelines if someone wishes to do so. To simply put it back into the article is in violation of [[original research]]. [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 00:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::Pseudoscience is a pejorative term used to dismiss opposing viewpoints. Truth is not decided by consensus-- any true scientist will tell you that. Please show me the scientific findings that have 'established' creationism to be a pseudoscience... But all of that is irrelevant here. The point is that your distaste for Dr. Sarfati's views is no excuse to spread libelous content on the bio page of a living person. Scott's attack on Sarfati is out of place here in this biography. Not a single person has been able to give a solid reasonable defense as to why that statement belongs there. Have you read the book? --[[User:Kanbei85|Kanbei85]] ([[User talk:Kanbei85|talk]]) 19:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
:::: Guettarda said, in comment, rather than talk "(rv, again - material is sourced; comments on talk apply to only the first line - and even that IS SOURCED)". [[Cite your sources]] about 'some critics', please. Three links to AiG site, and one to True Origins, does not constitute the citing of sources as you claim. "Critics and supporters of Sarfati often disagree" '''source?''' "Supporters would argue" '''source?''' "Thus, some critics find it reasonable" '''source?''' [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 01:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
{{od}} I told him he couldn't use BLP as a 3rr exemption and that he'd have to go to [[WP:BLPN]], which he has. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 19:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
::::: I am leaving this as is for a reply for a day or so. At that time, the revert will be made to remove it per Wikipedia rules of citing sources and I will appeal to admin for review/comment [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 01:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
::As far as sources go, ''[[BioScience]]'' is rock solid. If a peer-reviewed scientific journal is comfortable with the wording "crude piece of propaganda" then it is perfectly valid to quote this in wikipedia. [[User:MaxBrowne2|MaxBrowne2]] ([[User talk:MaxBrowne2|talk]]) 00:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
::::::Calling someone a scientist who has a Ph.D. in science is hardly POV. Duncharris' assertions violate the rule about original research. One would expect better from an admin — obedience of the rules is a good start, and not banning one's opponents would be nice too.[[User:220.245.180.134|220.245.180.134]] 04:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
:::Ha! Well that settles it, then! No, in reality a Darwinist, evolution-promoting publication such as that will be more than happy to smear the reputation of a prominent critic of theirs like Dr. Sarfati is. You either fail to understand, or refuse to understand, the highly divisive, partisan nature of this debate.--[[User:Kanbei85|Kanbei85]] ([[User talk:Kanbei85|talk]]) 01:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
:::::::Shame on Duncharris for exposing his own POV. Not only is Sarfati a scientist he is a '''''brilliant''''' scientist. [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0322sonlight_intro.asp] [[User:Daycd|David D.]] [[User talk:Daycd|(Talk)]] 08:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
::::In reality that is not the main focus of the publication at all. [[American Institute of Biological Sciences|AIBS]] has far more important things to do than debate with fringe theorists, like, you know, actual science. Among credible scientists there is no "debate" or "controversy", this is an invention of those who see everything through the prism of Biblical literalism. And no, the statement "crude piece of propaganda" is not libellous, it is well within the "valid commentary" provisions of any libel laws. [[User:MaxBrowne2|MaxBrowne2]] ([[User talk:MaxBrowne2|talk]]) 01:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
::::::::That may be true, but "brilliant" is also POV. Duncharris is clearly very bitter towards Dr Sarfati for reasons known only to himself.[[User:220.245.180.133|220.245.180.133]] 08:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::That's the No True Scotsman fallacy. "Credible scientists" here just means those you agree with, i.e. those who support mainstream consensus. How easily people are made to forget how many times the mainstream consensus has been proved wrong in the past. It should not be Wikipedia's job to aid in the smear campaign against consensus-challenging scientists and suppress scientific advancement in so doing. Dr. Sarfati does not deserve the demeaning treatment he's been given here. What a travesty.--[[User:Kanbei85|Kanbei85]] ([[User talk:Kanbei85|talk]]) 01:57, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

::::::When did he last publish a paper in a reputable scientific journal? [[User:MaxBrowne2|MaxBrowne2]] ([[User talk:MaxBrowne2|talk]]) 09:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
::(reducing indent) Beloved Angel (or messenger, to be more precise), you might want to stop obsessing over this — you're hurting your cause. [[User:Jim62sch|Jim62sch]] 02:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Once again, the No True Scotsman fallacy. The only journals you'll consider 'reputable' are those which tow the consensus line, of course! He is a frequent contributor to and editor of the [https://usstore.creation.com/subscribe-journal-of-creation Journal of Creation], which is a peer-reviewed scientific publication. Regardless, though, he has an earned Ph.D in a scientific field and recognized work in the area of Spectroscopy, which means he deserves to be treated with respect as a scientist and not unfairly labeled a 'crude propagandist' simply because his views are politically incorrect today.--[[User:Kanbei85|Kanbei85]] ([[User talk:Kanbei85|talk]]) 11:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
::: Jim62sch, I don't know what you are up about, but did you have something to add to the discussion rather than a personal attack? [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 00:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
::::::::He wasn't labeled that by anyone as far as I can tell - that was their opinion of the book. And young Earth creationism is factually incorrect, not politically incorrect. --[[User:Tronvillain|tronvillain]] ([[User talk:Tronvillain|talk]]) 12:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

{{od}}Saying it is 'factually incorrect' is your opinion, and has to be demonstrated, not merely asserted via various bandwagon arguments and appeals to authority. Since Sarfati authored the book, and the book is being called 'crude propaganda' (incorrectly), then by extension the author of that work must be a propagandist, by definition.--[[User:Kanbei85|Kanbei85]] ([[User talk:Kanbei85|talk]]) 12:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I've asked GregAsche to please review the situation. Instead of accusing me in the article's commentary, I requested Guettarda come to talk in the article and justify where she 'sees' sources that prevent that section from being [[original research]] (beyond links to the AiG website and True Origin, which do not) as requested in talk. Instead Guettarda accused me again (again in commentary) of whitewashing, and reverted the space I added (without changing content) to leave her the note (as she seems to be ignoring talk). Sources are still not present in that section to justify the "some critics" [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 00:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
:Nice [[WP:SYNTH]] you have there. Saying that a book is "crude propaganda" is ''not'' saying that the person who wrote it is a {{tq|"crude propagandist"}}, because making the second statement has potential implications like it still applying and it being the only or primary thing about them. Similarly, saying that a movie someone once made is bad is not the same as saying the person who directed it is a bad director. --[[User:Tronvillain|tronvillain]] ([[User talk:Tronvillain|talk]]) 13:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

::Yes, technically a person could write propaganda once in a while and not be overall a 'propagandist'; however in Sarfati's case, Refuting Evolution 2 is representative of the bulk of his work as a whole. If RE2 is propaganda, then Sarfati is most certainly a propagandist, as most of Sarfati's work has been aimed at defending the traditional, pre-Darwinian view of origins. Eugenie Scott's remark was itself a piece of crude propaganda, and there is no substantiation for it whatsoever. Her prominent position is no excuse for promulgating unsubstantiated smears against people she happens to disagree with, and similarly there is no excuse for promulgating that statement here on this page.--[[User:Kanbei85|Kanbei85]] ([[User talk:Kanbei85|talk]]) 13:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
::Agapetos, if you feel that what I said was a personal attack you are very much mistaken. You obviously have a very clear POV, but you are engaging in edit-warring, which tends to result in editors dedicated to NPOV reverting your comments on sight. If you really feel that Sarfati is being misrepresented, you need to posit your arguments here, rather than engage in edit-wars. Additionally, you have asked Guettarda to discuss the issues on this page, you need to do the same rather than posting clearly POV edits. This is precisely what I meant by noting that you are hurting your cause. [[User:Jim62sch|Jim62sch]] 02:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
:::You are repeating yourself, and you are not convincing anyone because what you say does not hold water. Please actually read what people write, especially the links to the Wikipedia rules pages you are ignoring. Then read those rules pages and keep the rules. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 15:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

::::I think you should take your own advice here. That was not a response to anything I wrote.--[[User:Kanbei85|Kanbei85]] ([[User talk:Kanbei85|talk]]) 15:39, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
:::How is it hurting any cause to insist that claims in articles must be "verifiable" according to every edit page here! How about providing sources as AA has asked for?[[User:220.245.180.134|220.245.180.134]] 04:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::[[WP:SYNTH]] and [[WP:NOR]]. This appear to be entirely your own analysis: {{tq|"Refuting Evolution 2 is representative of the bulk of his work as a whole. If RE2 is propaganda, then Sarfati is most certainly a propagandist, as most of Sarfati's work has been aimed at defending the traditional, pre-Darwinian view of origins."}} --[[User:Tronvillain|tronvillain]] ([[User talk:Tronvillain|talk]]) 21:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
:::: Jim, you are missing the point. I started this discussion[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jonathan_Sarfati#Some_critics]. Please read this section to see who is discussing and who is not (which is why it smacked more of a personal attack on me). [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 06:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
::::::Now we're really reaching for any excuse to criticize, aren't we? Actually, that 'analysis' may be mine, but I am not inserting that into the actual content of the article, now am I? it is also uncontroversial to anyone knowing anything about Sarfati's work.--[[User:Kanbei85|Kanbei85]] ([[User talk:Kanbei85|talk]]) 21:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

{{abottom}}
::I read all sections of a discussion before making a comment, thank you. I'm not clear precisely what this means, "who is discussing and who is not". As for the assertion re claims, did any of you (220.245.180.134, 220.245.180.133 or AA*) note the references, or if you did, did you simply reject them as they do not gibe with your opinion of Sarfati?
== Request for Comment-- NPOV Dispute; Clear consensus? ==
::<nowiki>*</nowiki>These IP's are too close for coincidence and one wonders if there isn't some sock- or meat-puppetry at play here. [[User:Jim62sch|Jim62sch]] 14:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
{{Archive top|result=SnowClose per request and there being no supporters of the position of a now-banned editor ''Non-admin close'' [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 18:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC) }}
::: To clarify, you said "you need to posit your arguments here" and I suggested you re-read to note that I was the one showing the reasons in Talk, while others were merely reverting without giving answer to why weasel words and original research should be allowed (i.e., who is actually doing the discussing, and who is not)[[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 18:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
According to user [[User:MaxBrowne2|MaxBrowne2]], "clear consensus" has been reached about the inclusion of the non-sequitur Eugenie Scott quote in Dr. Sarfati's bio. However, as best I can tell, it is a consensus of 3 or 4 people against one (myself), which is hardly a strong consensus. More importantly, though, no one has been able to give any reasonable defense as to why that quote actually belongs in Dr. Sarfati's bio! We need more than consensus here. We need a reasoned defense of including what appears completely out of place and unnecessarily disparaging towards Dr. Sarfati. This bio page is not a forum for debating creationism. Until such a time as a reasonable explanation can be given as to why that should be there, I believe it is appropriate to tag this article for POV.--[[User:Kanbei85|Kanbei85]] ([[User talk:Kanbei85|talk]]) 21:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

:The entire section above is your explanation. If you don't think the local consensus is enough, a more appropriate action would be to start an [[WP:RFC|RFC]]. [[User:Clpo13|clpo13]]<sub>([[User_talk:Clpo13|talk]])</sub> 21:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
:GregAsche declined to get involved for comment. Jim, perhaps you will review this with a more professional eye to who is discussing what, and who is simply pushing a POV with unsupported reverts and edits. Either way, I'll post it on the request for comment board. [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 07:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
:::I will be happy to do so. Until it is resolved, though, the POV tag should be left in place. By quoting Scott's disparaging remark about Sarfati's book, this bio page has been turned into a forum for debating creationism. That is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia as well as the point of a bio page. Can you give any reason why it should be there?--[[User:Kanbei85|Kanbei85]] ([[User talk:Kanbei85|talk]]) 21:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

::::Safarti has made it his job to debate evolution, so it's only natural that he'd receive pushback from organizations and people who represent the scientific consensus. It would be less neutral to omit any criticism of his views. [[User:Clpo13|clpo13]]<sub>([[User_talk:Clpo13|talk]])</sub> 22:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
AA - you have yet to make any convincing argument for the whitewash. Please try actually addressing what Dunc had to say. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 07:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
::::::Criticism of creationism is more than well-represented already in the various pages here on Wikipedia. It does not belong on Sarfati's bio page, since the page is about Sarfati, not about creationism. Of course it's natural Sarfati would receive pushback. That is irrelevant to his bio.--[[User:Kanbei85|Kanbei85]] ([[User talk:Kanbei85|talk]]) 23:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

:::::::Describing "pushback" is a natural thing to do in a biography. We do it for [[Albert Einstein#Quantum mechanics|Einstein]]; we do it for [[Charles Darwin#Responses to publication|Darwin]]. It's part of the job of portraying a life. [[User:XOR&#39;easter|XOR&#39;easter]] ([[User talk:XOR&#39;easter|talk]]) 00:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
: I addressed Dunc. He did not support his POV with sources. You have involved yourself without answering the points. [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 08:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''No to NPOV tag, yes to Scott''' &mdash; the article is written neutrally. Including the scientific community's response to his writing is an appropriate course of action. It is the very opposite of a non sequitur: literally, ''it follows.'' It does not turn the biography into "a forum for debating creationism" any more than mentioning Sarfati's dispute with Ross makes the biography a "forum" for debating between the different varieties of creationism. [[User:XOR&#39;easter|XOR&#39;easter]] ([[User talk:XOR&#39;easter|talk]]) 22:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

:::Incorrect. Sarfati's debate with Ross is rightly mentioned because it is the subject of one of Sarfati's works. I don't see what that has to do with Scott's comment.--[[User:Kanbei85|Kanbei85]] ([[User talk:Kanbei85|talk]]) 22:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
What part of the section that you insist on deleting do you consider ''unverifiable''? You have taken issue with the words "critics" and "supporters". The fact that they are not named does not justify wholesale deletion of the section. You take issue with "claims about arrogance" ''that are not in the section''. Please explain what it is you take issue with. Nothing you have said warrants deletion of the section. Find something real - don't just repeat what others tell you to say. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 08:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
::::If one would turn the article into a "forum for debating", so would the other. Neither of them do, and both of them are appropriate. [[User:XOR&#39;easter|XOR&#39;easter]] ([[User talk:XOR&#39;easter|talk]]) 23:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

::::::Your comparison with a brief mention of Hugh Ross in connection with one of Sarfati's books is inappropriate. While the entire book Refuting Compromise is dedicated to refuting Ross, no quote from Ross is contained, nor is one needed. It is not a standard practice to always include a rebuttal quote from someone who is being criticized by any work listed in a bio page! Yet, Eugenie Scott is mentioned only in passing in Refuting Evolution 2, and is not the actual subject of the work. Why is it necessary to quote her making a defamatory remark about the book? The answer is that it is completely unnecessary. If anything is needed at all, it could be reduced to a simple statement of "members of the mainstream scientific community have rejected Sarfati's work", and link to Scott's article if desired. It's called being objective and professional.--[[User:Kanbei85|Kanbei85]] ([[User talk:Kanbei85|talk]]) 00:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
: As you well know, it is not enough to say 'some critics' or 'some supporters' and Dunc's claim of something being well known without supporting sources is merely POV pushing. I took no issue with claims of arrogance; you confused me with another editor (again). Did you have any support? You have added nothing here aside from personal attacks of me; "don't just repeat what others tell you to say" adds nothing to the discussion. [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 08:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::::You have inadvertently made a good case for including Ross's reply to Sarfati. In addition, while you claim to be "objective and professional", you insist on labeling Scott and Branch's summary of Sarfati's book as "defamatory", which is only your subjective evaluation of it. Professionals quote, accurately and representatively. [[User:XOR&#39;easter|XOR&#39;easter]] ([[User talk:XOR&#39;easter|talk]]) 00:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

:::::::::There are ways of being non-objective simply with one's selection of what to quote and what to omit. This is a clear case of that. The quote is certainly defamatory, and non-scientific in nature. Calling Sarfati's work propaganda is not a scientific statement, but an inflammatory statement of opinion on Scott's part.--[[User:Kanbei85|Kanbei85]] ([[User talk:Kanbei85|talk]]) 01:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
::You have ''yet'' to supply any reason which justifies deletion of the section - less than idea wording '''is not grounds''' for deletion. If you consider content to be unverifiable, given the original author a reasonable amount of time (a week or two) to supply a reference. But, you must first explain what it is you consider "unverifiable". Please explain ''what'' you consider unverifiable. Have you made any attempts to verify the material yourself? Obviously, if you find material which is not up to standard, the ''first'' thing you need to do is try to bring it up to standard. You can't delete otherwise accurate content ''simply because it lacks a citation''. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 08:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::I left a message for you on your talk page. Please carefully consider which path you choose to take. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 05:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

*'''No to NPOV tag, yes to Scott''' — as discussed [[Talk:Jonathan Sarfati#Motion To Strike|above]], and the [[Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Jonathan_Sarfati|BLP noticeboard]]. --[[User:Tronvillain|tronvillain]] ([[User talk:Tronvillain|talk]]) 23:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
::: It's called [[no original research]] and yes, it can/should be removed as it is all POV pushing. It is not up to me to show what I consider 'unverifiable', but rather the article should have the sources available per Wikipedia policy. If you have sources for the 'some critics' (as outlined above, there are three that I found right away that are unsupported assertions of various 'some critics'), then by all means please do supply them. Otherwise, stop the personal attacks and erroneous 'reverts'. The onus is on the one that posted the article to support it correctly; it's not up to me to do that for them. [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 08:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
::This is supposed to be a discussion, not just a voting popularity contest. Your comment above adds nothing to it.--[[User:Kanbei85|Kanbei85]] ([[User talk:Kanbei85|talk]]) 23:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
::::"If a statement can't stand on its own without weasel words, it lacks neutral point of view; either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed. [[Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words]]
:::On the contrary, it does add: the discussion at the [[Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Jonathan_Sarfati|BLP noticeboard]] is relevant, and it had not been linked here before. I am grateful to tronvillain for posting that link, as I had been unaware of it. Besides, noting one's agreement with prior !votes is standard practice in Wikipedia discussions, not an example of a "popularity contest". [[User:XOR&#39;easter|XOR&#39;easter]] ([[User talk:XOR&#39;easter|talk]]) 23:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
::::So it is difficult to take [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] seriously for the claim "You can't delete otherwise accurate content ''simply because it lacks a citation''." This of course is [[begging the question]] about whether it is accurate at all! The Wiki rule above clearly states that it is up to the claimant to prove it, otherwise it must go.[[User:220.245.180.133|220.245.180.133]] 09:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''No to NPOV tag, yes to Scott''' and retain (and perhaps expand) mention that Jonathan Sarfati opposes Hugh Ross. It may be boring to most of us but ''to the creationists'' the question of whether creationist Sarfati or creationist Ross are closer to being right is important. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 01:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

*'''No to NPOV tag, yes to Scott''' and noting we have an editor who as he clearly couldn't get editors to agree here, he went, at my suggestin, to BLPN. He didn't get any further there so now he's asked for an RfC. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 11:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
:::::There is a fundamental difference between ''unverified'' and ''unverifiable''. Most of Wikipedia is (sadly) unverified. We need sources. But we also need content. Removed ''unverifiable'' material is appropriate - after making an exhaustive attempt to verify it, and after giving the original contributor a reasonable amount of time to verify it. In addition, '''most of the material you are removing has a source'''. So part of your assertion is simply false, and part of it is does not appear to be in the interest of the project and is incompatible with the idea of a cooperatively edited project. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 14:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''No to NPOV tag, yes to Scott''' Starting an RfC over a tag and stating the obvious is a new low. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 23:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

*'''Move to SNOW close''' Consensus is clear, editor has been blocked indefinitely, essentially for wasting the community's time. [[User:MaxBrowne2|MaxBrowne2]] ([[User talk:MaxBrowne2|talk]]) 03:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
:::::: Once again, Guettarda, where you say that "most of the material [I am} removing has a source", you do not show that the weasel words are supported. The backbone of the entire section is built not on reputable source, but on weasel words. It begins with weasel words, continues with them dispersed throughout the section, and the only sources used are from AiG and True Origins which do nothing to avoid that this entire section is original research, unsupported allegations and analysis.[[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 18:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
** '''I second the move to Snow Close'''. There is zero chance that Wikipedia will ever treat pseudoscientists who believe that everything was created in 7 literal days 10,000 years ago the same way we treat the actual scientists -- astronomers, physicists, geologists, paleontologists, etc. -- who have solid evidence that the earth is much, much older. This sort of thing just makes those creationists -- [[Flying Spaghetti Monster|FSM]] bless them -- who calmly advocate for their position ''without'' being total asshats about it look bad. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 04:07, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

{{Archive bottom}}
===Personal Attacks===
'''NOTE''' I've closed this as opinion seemed to be that this RfC was a waste of time. If anyone feels I have done the wrong thing, please contact me. [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 19:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

AA, you seem to think that anything written that is not to your liking is a personal attack. In reading through the comments, I have seen nothing that qualifies as a personal attack. My experience with Guettarda indicates that he is likely the last person to engage in personal attacks. Merely claiming a personal attack does not make it so, and I doubt that any objective observer would agree with your assertion in this matter.

Additionally, if you really wish to discuss the article, do so rather than parroting Wiki rules (this goes for 220.245.180.134 and 220.245.180.133 as well). You argue, in essence that specifics are missing, and yet in so arguing you offer no substantive specifics yourself as to what precisely your objections are. [[User:Jim62sch|Jim62sch]] 14:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

: Do I really need to outline these? Telling someone that they are obsessive and/or obsessing, whinging with false accusations of sock puppetry ('whois' would have shown you that the anon 220 IP is from Melbourne), "don't just repeat what others tell you to say" are personal attacks (i.e., Ad Hominem) that add nothing to the conversation except a diversion from the issues at hand to focus on the person. "Comment on content, not on the contributor". I am not merely 'parroting Wiki rules', although that is a valid thing to do when confronted with misunderstanding. Why don't you, instead, show me where the rules have been followed. I have outlined the specifics several times, and shown how the rules support removal of weasel words (some critics) that are repeatively used, and the backbone of that entire section. Therefore, it is invalid to leave it in because it has no sourced substance. As I said before, "'''Critics and supporters of Sarfati often disagree'''" "'''Supporters would argue'''" "'''Thus, some critics find it reasonable'''" What (sourced) critics? What (sourced) supporters? This section fails [[no original research]] and [[Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words|weasel words]]. [[Cite your sources]] about the weasel words, please, or in accordance with Wikipedia policy, it "lacks neutral point of view; either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed". If you cannot provide the sources, then it is to be removed until such time that someone does find the reputable sources. Content should remain after it is verified, not before. [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 18:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

:::I also noted the possibility of meatpuppetry, a comment that was an observation, not an accusation -- read the words carefully. In any case, Melbourne is interesting for a number of reasons, and yet, as we do not have your IP, we do not know from where you are writing. In fact, IPs can be deceptive if the ISP is located somewhere other than the user. [[User:Jim62sch|Jim62sch]] 23:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

::Jim62sch, you said (in comments) at 23:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC): "AA, if you have points, make them on the talk page, stop attempting to put your blatant POV onto the article. If edit-warring continues, the article will likely be locked". My points were made 11:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC), 21:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC), 00:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC), 01:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC), 00:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC), 08:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC), & 18:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC), before you ever posted that comment. You also haven't supplied anything more than complaints and requests for me to make points. How many times do I have to point out the weasel words and show that the section is original research and unsupported analysis of unsourced claims of critics and supporters? I have now made it once again in Talk (see above) and responded on your personal talk page so you won't miss it. [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 19:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
:: Furthermore, the current version you reverted to removes the supported NPOV that Sarfati is an editor and an author (with sourced links).[[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 19:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

::::And your edit removed the NPOV that Sarfati is a YEC. Your point then? [[User:Jim62sch|Jim62sch]] 23:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

::: Agapetos angel, you may want to actually consider the difference between verified and verifiable and how that relates to Wikipedia's founding principle of collaborative contributing. Unilateral deleting of verifiable (note I didn't say "verified") content is going to viewed by other parties as you not collaborating to reach a reasonable consensus version. Done often enough and it's viewed as simple bowdlerizing. [[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] 19:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

:::: Felonious, I realize that there is a lot of text here in talk, and you may not have read it all, but how am I not trying to reach a reasonable collaboration? I posted my points for deleting the text over and over again, and one editor blocked me in conflict of interest and without proper reason, and the other two editors keep saying they can't see where I have made my points, regardless of a dozen or so repetitions of them. Collaborative concensus cannot be achieved when one side resorts to bullying techniques and refused (before mediation was requested) to discuss the actual issues. [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 20:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::Bullying? Are you kidding? Anyway, repetition of ''pro forma'' objections does nothing to clarify your points. [[User:Jim62sch|Jim62sch]] 23:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
::::::Yes, bullying, when biased sysops like Dunc ban opponents like AA, and mob rule tries to impose violations of Wiki rules. The rules are clear enough: if not sourced, it goes until a source can be found. And vague references to critics and supporters (source? ''which'' critics and supporters?) are clearly weasel words.[[User:220.245.180.133|220.245.180.133]] 01:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

== Mediation requested ==
I have [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#Jonathan_Sarfati requested mediation], believing that agreement cannot be reached when one side continually accuses and fails to see plainly posted points, rather than discussing the matters openly and with a mind to compromise. [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 19:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

:Agapetos angel, mediation is not going to enforce any particular version of the the content. And mediation should be sought only after genuine efforts at reaching consensus fail. You should try to compromise and reach consensus here first. [[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] 19:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

:: I have tried (see above). For my efforts, I have been erroneously blocked by an editor with a conflict of interest, (mildly) attacked personally, and my explained points for deletion of that section have been ignored, regardless of the repetition of them. [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 20:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

== Contested material ==

Since AA refuses to explain his/her rationale for ''removing'' the material (as opposed to asking for a citation), I have broken down the section sentance-by-sentance for discussion. Please explain what it is that makes you believe that the material in the section is '''unverifiable'''. What efforts have you made to verify the material prior to deleting it? The simple fact that the material is ''unsourced'' is obviously not the issue here, since there is lots of other unsourced information in the article, and throughout Wikipedia. While it is reasonable to expect that sources be provided, it is not reasonable to remove material simply because it is unsourced. In addition, much of the material that you are removing ''is already sourced'', so that rationale cannot hold for the entire deletion. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 19:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
:Finally. I'd be happy to point out, one last time, where the weasel words exist. I will not, however, be subject to multiple choice that gives the equivalent of 'when did you stop beating your wife'. As I said before, unverified/unverifiable, it's not my duty to do so. It is up to an editor to replace the weasel words, removed the original research, and source the critical statements before reinstalling the text. Perhaps, Guettarda, you'd like to illustrate how weasel worded statements can be verified. They are unverifiable by their very definition. [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 20:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

::You have insisted on deletion of the content on the grounds that it is unverified. What evidence do you have that the material is '''false'' or '''unverifiable'''? Why do you feel that it must be deleted instead of being referenced or refactored? It ''is'' your duty to attempt to verify material before removing it unless you are certain that it is unverifiable or false. Yet you refuse to support your campaign for immediate removal with any evidence. It is false to say that the burden is not on you - as the editor insisting on immediate deletion, the burden most certainly is on you. As a participant in this project, you need to make a good-faith attempt to verify material before declaring it unverifiable. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 21:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

::: I have insisted on deletion of the content on the grounds that it is unsupported assertations, invalid weasel statements, original research, redundant information, and isolated quotes (when the weasel statements are removed). I don't believe I ever said that the grounds were because it is false (which is not a wikipedia standard, alas). That is a strawman of my point. Please show how weasel worded statements can be verified. Some people, a few people, many people may actually feel/think/act a certain way, but it doesn't make it verifiable, and the weasel word policy is in place for that very reason. It is that policy that the statements should be removed. It is not my problem if you have issue with standing policy. [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 21:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

::::If you do not think that they are false and convincing evidence that they are unverifiable, there is no reason to remove them immediately. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 01:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

===Sentence 1===
* ''Critics and supporters of Sarfati often disagree whether he should be considered a scientist.''
**What part of this statement do you dispute
***That his supporters claim he should a scientist,
***That his critics claim that he should not be considered a scientist, or
***That this disagreement actually exists? [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 19:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
****In sentence 1, 'critics and supporters' are weasel words. What critics? What supporters? Where have they disagreed (beyond original research)? Therefore, the statement is invalid (not to mention unsupported).[[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 20:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
****As a summary of the following issues, this seems accurate. [[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] 20:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
***** It is not summary. It's original research that is unsupported, and that sets the tone and subject matter for the section; thereby, it establishes an invalid backbone. [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 21:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
*****No, I'm sorry, you are mistaken. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 01:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

::If that were the case, then you would have asked for sources, as opposed to immediately and repeatedly deleting the material. Do you have some reason to believe that the statement is ''false'' or ''unverifiable''? [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 21:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
::: Again, 'critics and supporters' are weasel words. What critics? What supporters? Where have they disagreed (beyond original research)? [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 21:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

::: Critic and supporter are weasel words? Ohhhkkaaayyy. [[User:Jim62sch|Jim62sch]] 23:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

:::So what's your point? Weasel words are neither inherently verifiable nor unverifiable. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 01:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

===Sentence 2===
* ''[[Young Earth Creationism]] is considered a [[pseudoscience]] by almost all scientists''.
**What part of this sentance do you dispute? [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 19:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
***In sentence 2, what does this (unsupported) assertion have to do with the section? [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 20:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
***This is a simple statement of fact, only objected to YECs themselves. There is no YEC research in mainstream since. The statement is accurate. [[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] 20:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
**** This statement of yours is POV. The fact remains that the assertion is unsupported and has nothing to do with the Sarfati article. [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 21:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
*****No, it isn't. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 01:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

::The statement is "common knowledge" and is covered in several other articles. It's obviously neither false nor unverifiable. So why do you want it deleted? [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 21:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
::: The fact remains that the assertion is unsupported and has nothing to do with the Sarfati article. [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 21:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

:::: Of course it is has something to do with the Sarfati article. Sarfati is YEC. Everything he does is about [[Young Earth Creationism]]. And incidentally, classifying YEC as a pseudoscience is an issue that has been discussed before on other wiki pages. The current consensus is that is it listed as such. If you have a problem with this general issue then maybe it should be discussed on the talk page for [[Young Earth Creationism]]? ---posted by JoshuaZ ---

::::: The Sarfati article already states that he is YEC, and YEC is linked to the YEC article where similar statements about pseudoscience abound. Without the other invalid statements in the disputed section, that sentence standing alone has no bearing on the Sarfati article.. [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 21:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::: I'm somewhat new to Wikipedia, so maybe I am missing something here. My impression is that many articles have a relevant one or two sentence summary of some issue or how it relates to some issue even if a linking article discusses the matter in more detail. Traditional encyclopediae also do this. Is there some reason this sentence doesn't fall into this category? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

::::::: No problem, Joshua. I'd suggest reviewing [[wikipedia:no original research]] for reasons why policy does not allow "unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments ". The 'summary' is unnecessary, especially as the other material is invalid. [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 22:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::::: Ok, now I'm seriously confused. You just said right above that the issue here is that "that sentence standing alone has no bearing on the Sarfati article" and I observed that the sentence is in the relevant category of giving a summary of an important detail which is in a linking article. How is that original research? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

::::::::: In the context in which is was used. It was not used to summarize the YEC position that Sarfati holds, but rather as a springboard for other bald assertions in a section filled with weasel words. As such, it is used as original research. [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 22:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::: Let me see if I understand. Your objection to Sentence 2 is within the larger context of the section? So it is not that the sentence constitutes original research but that the section includes original research and this sentence is only there as part of the section and doesn't stand on its own? Am I understanding you correctly? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

::::::::::: Let me see if I can clarify. The section in dispute is filled with original research and weasel words. Guettarda separated each section to ascertain objection (even though I had already fully documented it already numerous times). In the interest of resolve, I responded to each point multiple times. Again, the section in its entire construct is in dispute because it is built on the back of unsupported assertations (of which this is one), original research (of which this applies in its current usage), and weasel statements. If you remove all that is wrongly formatted about the section, this sentence stands alone with some random quotes. My personal POV on this statement on it's own merit is not valid to the discussion, and as I mentioned, I have no interest in rabbit-trailing into a POV argument between what is science and what is pseudoscience. That is not the objective of resolving this dispute. [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 23:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::::: So would you agree to the following statement "It is reasonable to have Sentence 2 if the majority of the section stands and/or becomes better sourced?" [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

===Sentence 3===
*''Supporters would argue that he has a doctorate in physical chemistry and has published in undisputed scientific journals, so is a scientist.''
**Do you assert that this statement is not made? [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 19:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
***In sentence 3, I do not have to assert anything. 'Supporters' is a weasel word, and saying he has a doctorate and is published in this section is unnecessary as it is redundant to other sections in the article. [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 20:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
***The arguement is indeed made by his supporters. This again is a simple statement of fact and therefore reasonable. [[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] 20:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

::You are insisting it must be deleted immediately. Please explain ''why'' you think so. Is it false, or unverifiable? [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 21:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

::: "When did you stop beating your wife"? This sort of either/or questioning is fallacious. As I said, 'Supporters' is a weasel word (what supporters?), and saying he has a doctorate and is published in this section is unnecessary as it is redundant to other sections in the article. Please don't assert a lack of explanation when I've provided one. [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 21:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC) (NB, FeloniousMonk changed the formatting of my replies, and as such, I'll allow the benefit of the doubt that you may have missed the answer)

:::: Well, since the only people more extreme than AiG are the [[Flat Earth Society]], it's fairly obvious that "supporters" means fellow YECists whereas "opponents" means those more on the scientific side of him. This includes Hugh Ross of course, but given he promotes a slighlty different brand of pseudoscience, but given his extreme minority, "opponents" means particularly mainstream science, which includes plenty of Christian scientists. That much is extremely obvious, unless you pretend you don't realise this because you want the mainstream view to be suppressed. Oh and who can't spell sentence? &mdash; [[user:Duncharris|Dunc]]|[[User talk:duncharris|&#9786;]] 21:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
::::: POV pushing doesn't equal valid article material. 'Supporters' is a weasel word, and saying he has a doctorate and is published in this section is unnecessary as it is redundant to other sections in the article. [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 21:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::: Well he hasn't published any papers supporting YECism in journals. That is a fundamental part of the [[scientific method]]. Why is it that he hasn't published any papers on YECism? &mdash; [[user:Duncharris|Dunc]]|[[User talk:duncharris|&#9786;]] 21:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

::::::: At the risk of being slightly Devil's Advocatey, many YEC's and IDers claim that the mainstream journals shut them out. Also, AiG claims that their Technical Journal constitutes a reasonable peer reviewed journal. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::::: And what does that have to do with the discussion on why this is an invalid statement based on use of weasel words and unsupported assertions that do not negate a charge of original research? [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 22:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

===Sentence 4===
*''Another issue is whether one can be a scientist in some domains of work even if one advocates an ostensibly non-scientific position in others.''
**What issue do you take with this sentance? [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 19:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
***In sentence 4, this sentence has no source. Who stated (aside from original research) "whether one can be ..."? For it to not be considered original research, that statement must be sourced. [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 20:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
***This is a statement of basic reasoning. It's acceptable as it stands. [[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] 20:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

::Do you have any reason to believe that it is original research? Please give some positive evidence why you insist that it must be ''immediately deleted'' from the article. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 21:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

::: Original research policy is self-explanatory. This is a bald statement asserted as fact. Where is this an issue? Who made that statement? [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 21:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

:::: This is a well known issue with pseudoscience. If you really insist, I'll track down a formal source. However, I think this is well known enough that it is clearly not an issue. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
::::: It is necessary to show a source regarding this issue pertaining to Sarfati to show that this is not original research. [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 21:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::: This sentence talks about a general issue, why would it need to be directly pertaining to Sarfati? Incidentally, do you believe that this is not a question that is frequently discussed about defining [[pseudoscience]] and pseudoscientists? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

::::::: That's a good point, Joshua. And as such, why does that general issue belong in Sarfati's article then? Especially if the other invalid statements are removed? [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 21:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::::: See my above comment about how entries are frequently constructed. Also, I'm still curious as to your opinion about my second question here. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

::::::::: My opinion (i.e., POV) is not valid to any constructive discussion about the disputed section. I'd rather not rabbit trail, if you don't mind. [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 22:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::: Sorry I didn't make why I was asking the question clearer or possibly my phrasing was bad. Second attempt: There are statements which do not need references (for example, "the sky is blue") Do you think that the claim that the ''issue (of) whether one can be a scientist in some domains of work even if one advocates an ostensibly non-scientific position in others'' is sufficiently well known as an issue such that it does not require a reference? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

::::::::::: (<---- serious colon problem, lol) 'Well-known' is relative to usage, Joshua. The sky is blue might be a valid statement in a section about sky color observation, but is it a valid point when used in an article about (so-called) global warming? Context is king, and when something is in the middle of invalid assertions, it is best that it is sourced to prevent a complaint of it being original research. How something is used is as important as what it says. For another example, it is a fact that Dobson did not take a salary for his 27 years as head of Focus on the Family. I think that is a valid point in contrast with a discussion about another religious nonprofit CEO's salary; another editor may not think so. To simply assert that fact would not be appropriate. It has to be sourced (so it can be verfied), and its relevance to the article it's posted in has to be supported. Furthermore, just because something is well-known, does that mean that it's valid or even factual all the time? Is it a valid statement in the midst of a thunderstorm {black sky}, a cloudy day {white sky}, or a sunrise/sunset {multi-coloured sky}? What if you are standing on the moon and your POV became relevant to that reference frame? It's important not to make generalizations. To discuss Sarfati directly in his article is the goal; not to make vague generalizations that may or may not apply to him. [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 22:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

===Sentence 5===
* ''However, the young Earth creationist site [[Answers in Genesis]] lists many creationists who are active in science (though many for work unconnected to creationism), and points out that many of the founders of modern science, such as [[Isaac Newton]], [[Robert Boyle]] and [[Michael Faraday]] were biblical creationists [http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/default.asp], though Darwinian theory was not seriously developed until after all of the preceding had died.''
**Is this material not at the cited link? Do you dispute that Newton, Boyle and Faraday lived before the development of Darwinian theory? [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 19:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
***Content is supported by the link. Seems fine. [[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] 19:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
***Sentence 5, although sourced, rests on the backbone of the weasel words in the other sentences. Perhaps appropriate for the AiG article (or the Newton, Boyle and Faraday articles), it does not stand alone here when the other invalid statements are removed, and has nothing to do with the article about Sarfati. [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 20:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

::Do you have any reason to believe that it is original research? Please give some positive evidence why you insist that it must be ''immediately deleted'' from the article. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 21:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
::: Please refer to my already posted answer: (Sentence 5, although sourced, rests on the backbone of the weasel words in the other sentences. Perhaps appropriate for the AiG article (or the Newton, Boyle and Faraday articles), it does not stand alone here when the other invalid statements are removed, and has nothing to do with the article about Sarfati.) [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 21:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

===Sentence 6===
*''In response, Sarfati has argued that in reality evolutionary ideas date back at least to Greek philosophers, and these scientists were well aware of them.[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative_29July2002.asp]''
**What problem do you have with this statement? [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 19:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
***Sentence 6 has nothing to do with the header. [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]]
***Either he's said it or he didn't. If he did, it's relevant. [[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] 20:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
**** Relevant to what exactly? To the article? In what way is it relevant. Sarfati said heaps of stuff, but out-of-context and irrelevant, it does not stand alone. [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]]

::It follows immediately from the previous '''cited''' material. Why do you believe that is must be deleted immediately? [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 21:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

::: Cited material does not equal relevant material. If you remove the backbone of weasel statement, the house of cards falls and this sentence does not stand alone. [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 21:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

===Sentence 7===
*''Sarfati received his PhD in physical chemistry.''
**Do you dispute this statement? If so, why are you deleting mention of it here and not elsewhere in the article? [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 19:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
***Sentence 7 is redundant. [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 20:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
***No comment. [[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] 20:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

::It follows immediately from the previous '''cited''' material. Why do you believe that is must be deleted immediately? [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 21:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

::: This is redundant. Redundancy should be deleted, immediately or nearly immediately, to avoid cluttered articles. [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 21:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

===Sentence 8===
* ''Thus, some critics find it reasonable to question his knowledge in apparently unrelated fields- namely the creationist perspective in biology and astronomy.''
**Do you believe this statement to be false? [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 19:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
***Sentence 8 uses the weasel words 'some critics' and is unsourced. Again, what critics? And where do they question his knowledge? No reputable sources are provided. [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 20:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
***"Some critics" is a widely accepted phrase when critics span a spectrum. I doubt there's any shortage of critics who do what the statement says. [[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] 20:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

::Do you have any reason to believe that it is original research? Please give some positive evidence why you insist that it must be ''immediately deleted'' from the article. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 21:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

::: I think this is sourced enough as is, but any event, here is a source that is relevant to this point and a few other sentences: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/supernova/sarfati.html Agapetos, would it satisfy you if this link were added after this sentence? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

:::: The link may be valid to a pre-existing synthesis, but the sentence would also need to be reworded to remove weasel words. "Some critics" could be changed, for example, to "Talk Origin author X stated ...". [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 21:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

::::: So if I understand you, in order to use "some " we must link to at least <math> n</math> sources for some <math> n > 1</math>? At this risk of being impolite, that's ridiculous. What value of <math> n </math> is acceptable? <math> n = 2 </math>? <math> n = 6 </math>? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::: It may be ridiculous to you, but it is wikipedia policy regarding weasel words (like 'some'). [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 21:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

::::::: So under your interpretation of the wikipedia guidelines, what number is the minimum acceptable number? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::::: Please review the policy [[wikipedia:avoid weasel words | here.]] It suggests ways to revise weasel statements to acceptable (by policy) standards [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words#Improving_weasel_words][[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 21:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

===Sentence 9===
* ''Sarfati himself has raised this point regarding writers in skeptic journals, eg he called one such writer "An anthropologist, so anything he says about radiometric dating should be taken with a large grain of salt." [http://www.trueorigin.org/noaig.asp]''
**Do you believe this statement to be false? [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 19:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
***Sentence 9 does not stand by itself. [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 20:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
***Again, either he's said this or he hasn't. Supporting link shows he has, so it's relevant here. [[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] 20:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

::It follows immediately from the previous '''cited''' material. Why do you believe that is must be deleted immediately? [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 21:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

::: Again, what relevance does this isolated statement have when the weasel worded statements are removed. Why do you believe it should remain? What relevance does it have to the Sarfati article? As I pointed out above, Sarfati has said heaps of stuff. Not all of it should be posted in a concise, encyclopedic article. [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 21:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

===Sentence 10+===
* ''In addition, Sarfati has written: "We have always tried to avoid saying or implying ‘believe me because I’m a scientist trained in such and such a field’, therefore we were not guilty of this fallacy. Rather, we try to rely on the strengths of our arguments, the soundness or unsoundness of which are independent of who is making them. Hopefully, the only time we appeal to our qualifications is defensively, to refute the charge that ‘no intelligent person/no real scientist believes creation/doubts goo-to-you evolution, or to point out to ‘professional biologists’ resorting to that fallacy that we also have ‘professional biologists’ on staff. [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative_05november2002.asp]"
**On what grounds do you disagree with this quote? [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 19:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
***Seems reasonable and well-supported to me. [[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] 19:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
***While sourced, sentence 10+ also does not stand alone. Again, when the backbone of the weasel words and original research is removed, the sourced material has no place in this article, no place under the existing header, or finds itself redundant to other instances of the same statement or idea. [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 20:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
****Seems relevant to me. If it were a genuine non sequitur I might agree. [[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] 20:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
***** And once more, what relevance does this isolated statement have when the weasel worded statements are removed? [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 21:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


::It follows immediately from the previous '''cited''' material. Why do you believe that is must be deleted immediately? [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 21:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I have answered each point, which is a lengthy (and I believe unnecessary) effort to reiterate what I've said in talk numerous times. I hope all this work will not again go to waste. [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 20:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

:Nope, you have not made any attempt to explain why you insist that this material must be immediately deleted from the article without giving the original author a reasonable amount to time to source/refactor the content. You have failed to address the only germane question - '''why do you feel that the material must be deleted immediately'''? [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 21:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

:: Guettarda, I'm sorry if you feel that way. I have responded to each of your points, albeit not in the way you assume I must (some of your either/or choices left out the correct response). Unsupported assertations, invalid weasel statements, original research, redundant information, and isolated quotes (when the weasel statements are removed) have no place in an encyclopedic article. '''Until''' they are supported, they should be removed for those very reasons (as I showed you before from the definitions of policy). It's not like that text can't be obtained from the archived history. Just because you assert that the only germane question is ... doesn't make it so, I'm sorry to say. The main point is that the section does not conform to Wikipedia standards, and as such should be appropriately edited, or removed until such time that it can be. [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 21:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

:::If you are sorry I feel that way, why have you repeatedly ignored the relevant question? [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 22:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

::: From [[wikipedia:avoid weasel words]]: "Weasel words don't really give a neutral point of view; they just spread hearsay, or couch personal opinion in vague, indirect syntax. It's better to put a name and a face on an opinion than to assign an opinion to an anonymous source." Until such time that the weasely worded statements are revised, I maintain that they should be deleted as inappropriate content. [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 22:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

== Possible Reference? ==

I would have just dropped this reference in, but given the current conflict over the page, I will just put it here: http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?storyid=2375
This is also possibly relevant to the general issues with Sarfati's comparisons of various people to Nazis. Thoughts? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

: Properly formated (using sources rather than weasel words and assertions), this is a valid source for his views on Nazis, I feel. It is my (POV--laugh) opinion that many Jews (Poles, etc.) feel strongly about the history of the Holocaust and Nazis, and it might be valid to find more information and tie it into his Jewish background. [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 21:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Ironicaly it seem from all this discussion that the most formalised rebuttals of Sarfati come from [http://www.answersincreation.org/youngministry.htm#JonathanSarfati OEC Christians]. Apparently he has been largely ignored by 'mainstream' science. This is a sure sign that they cannot address his arguments. [[User:Daycd|David D.]] [[User talk:Daycd|(Talk)]] 22:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

::Interestingly, David, you draw an incorrect inferrence. Sarfati is ignored not because his arguments cannot be refuted (the average 9th grader could refute his arguments) but rather because they are not science and because few scientists feel a need to refute that which is clearly nonsense lest they lend it more credibility than it deserves. [[User:Jim62sch|Jim62sch]] 23:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
:::As if Jim is in a position to know. In reality, they are rejected for ideological reasons, where materialism is ruled to be the only game in town.

:::Also, most of the rebuttals on that supposed OEC website are by a known atheist.[[User:220.245.180.133|220.245.180.133]] 01:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

== Removal of Weasel Word box ==

Why was this box removed? It is valid to add that box when there is a dispute, and there is no reason for it to have been removed that I can see in policy. Adding it back with note to see this message. It seems like reverts are being done just for the sake of reverting. "The weasel template can be added to the top of an article or section to bring attention to an article or section that has many weasel words." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words#Improving_weasel_words][[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 22:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

:Please define which words you feel are weasel words and why you feel that they are weasel words. Thank you for your cooperation. [[User:Jim62sch|Jim62sch]] 23:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

:: Shown above ''ad nauseam'' ('some critics', 'some supporters', etc.) and examples of how this is against policy is shown here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words#Examples]. You're very welcome. Now please reinstate the box for the section that includes weasel words. [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 23:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

:Some is not a weasel word. Why precisely do you feel that it is? [[User:Jim62sch|Jim62sch]] 23:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

:: Why precisely do you ignore that weasel words are to be avoided? I provided you the link to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words#Examples examples of weasel words/phrases]. It's not ''my'' ''feelings'', but rather wikipedia guidelines. [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 23:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

:::And? As a linguist, I think that many of the items on that page are of PC value, not of real value. (I especially despise the bolded, blue-colored note regarding the passive voice -- it exists for a reason (it's one of the two remaining voices of the original three in IE.)) In any case, the alternative to these phrases would be to specify every critic/supporter, which would create an insufferably long article. [[User:Jim62sch|Jim62sch]] 23:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

::::Clearly AA is following the actual Wiki guidelines. Evidently AA's opponents are treating the Wiki rules by the weaselly "living document" crap that allegedly justifies activist judges legislating from the bench. In reality, a document means what it says according to the original meaning of the authors, not what Dunc et al. would like it to have meant if they had written it.[[User:220.245.180.133|220.245.180.133]] 01:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

== Removing valid content under the guise of 'reverts' ==
Why are editors removing valid content under the guise of 'reverts' and calling them a consensus version? Links have been (accidently?) removed/deleted and when I replace them, someone 'reverts' without looking to see what was changed, and calls it a revert to a consensus version. The links are valid and this is becoming annoyingly like a bully session where editors are acting without review in a kneejerk fashion. Sarfati is an author and an editor. The links to articles were valid and relevant. No one has disputed these in talk. What's the beef? [[User:Agapetos angel|agapetos_angel]] 23:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


:You do realize that you are way past 3RR, right? I mean, you seem to know all the other Wikitrivia, you must know about that. [[User:Jim62sch|Jim62sch]] 23:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

: The primary issue is that he is most well known for being a [[Young Earth Creationist]] and he is a writer and editor only in that context. At minimum, this makes your version very poorly phrased. YEC should be the first thing mentioned. Futhermore, the fact that he is a writer is quite clear from elsewhere in the article. As you have observed, redundancy should be avoided. For both those reasons [[FeloniousMonks]]'s reversion makes sense. I am therefore taking the liberty of again reverting back to that version. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
::You clearly have not even bothered to deal with AA's extensive documentation on the rules about weasel words, and the heavy-handed reversions removing valid links are just not on. Mob rule by AA's opponents doesn't make them right.
::Also, clearly Sarfati is well known in the New Zealand chess world and for work on high-temperature superconductors, not just as a YEC.[[User:220.245.180.133|220.245.180.133]] 01:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:45, 25 February 2024

Section Order[edit]

Hi Ed,

I disagree with your re-ordering based on the intersection of these two points:

  • His notability as chess player and as author are quantitatively indinstinguishable.
  • The brevity of the Chess section allows for better readability and article flow.

--Otheus 19:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but I still want to know whether he's a notable chess player who wrote some books; or a notable author who's good at chess. --Uncle Ed 19:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After a google search, I discovered 80 times as many hits for creationist than chess player, so I reverted JoshuaZ. This, of course, will be my last reversion of the day! --Uncle Ed 20:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can see there is a long history here, but I'm not going to dig through 5 archives! I perused one arbcom decision briefly and found this gem:
  • Jonathan Sarfati is a creationist who was trained as a scientist. [1]
Don't know where you found this, but it's not in the link you provided. --Otheus 20:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and revert if you think I've missed something should be obvious to me. But afterwards, if you could point it out to me, I'd be much obliged. --Uncle Ed 20:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*scratching head* Okay, for now, I'm not going to address the lead. I'm still addressing the article flow. Now on chess player vs. creationist, is there an arbcom ruling or policy saying that notability is measurable by google hits? I doubt that. Google results are skewed toward relevancy on the web, not toward relevancy in the media or in popular consciousness. But perhaps a comparison can be drawn. Find another chess player-author and see how many hits they get in proportion to each. JZ, what do you think? --Otheus 20:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected link: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Agapetos_angel. I apologize, I got the rfc mixed up with the rfa. --Uncle Ed 20:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have no problem with "creationist trained as a scientist", but as expressed by JZ and in previous conversations, I think it would be better to have "chess master" or some such in the same breath. --Otheus 20:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In other word's he's
as famous for his advocacy of Creationism as he is for his skill in chess playing
--Uncle Ed 20:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I actually have no idea if he's as "famous", but notability is not something easily quantified. At any rate, I rewrote the lead to hopefully reflect consensus here. Comments? --Otheus 16:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it is, counting the number of hits from a Google search puts the lie to that notion. If you have no idea what he's most notable for then perhaps you shouldn't be editing such a contentious article or least reading the archives and the related RFAR evidence. Your rewrite was less than neutral, elevating Sarfati as being most notable as a chess player and scientist despite his most notable activity, creationism, is easily verified as being his most notable activity as seen in the evidence presented here already. Please read the archives; this very point was discussed at great length and is long settled, or at least read the article. Had you you'd know that Sarfati has not been recently published as a scientist nor has he been competing at a notable level in chess but what he has been doing it writing about creationism. FeloniousMonk 03:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is unwieldy. Let's break it down.
First, this diff[2] by Steve Dafour first introduced Sarfati's chess playing on par with his CMI role. This originally passed your scrutiny [here and in subsequent edits, so I did not see why you would object to it. And yes, please do read the archives, notably: [3].
Second, about notability. I think you (plural) are confusing notable for most recently known. This is a very important distinction. Google is not an indicator of notability. Google does not adequately represent material before 1992, before the WWW was conceived. His chess playing days peaked in the late 80's, but continued in the early 90's. Further, more recent material that is of a contentious origin, such as his writings on ID, than something the press generally has little interest in, such as chess. I would also argue that being a part of chess history is inherently more notable than being a writer for a fringe group of scientists.
Third, I agree his PhD is not implicitly notable. However, I was attempting to flesh out the Arbcom's summary that he is "trained as a scientist". I am trained as a scientist, but I do not have a PhD, so in that context, it is notable. Being "trained as a scientist" is weak and vague.
You said, "if you have no idea what he's most notable for then perhaps you shouldn't be editing such a contentious article or least reading the archives and the related RFAR evidence." I have not been able to find the RFAR evidence for this article. I kept asking for it, but no one provided a link. As far as the archives, I did read a fair amount, but it sounded like siamese cats in heat more than it did a talk section.
Also, please use the word 'lie' more carefully. I believe you meant "falsehood" or something similar. There was no intent on my part to deceive.
I have no intention of getting in an edit war, but I believe it is not good style per WP:LEAD or fair to Mr. Sarfati to leave this lead as is for too long. I do note, of course, that it had been this way for almost a year before February. But my intent is to make the article better, not to diminish Sarfati's career in any way. I came across the article in early February, and only Ed Poor's recent change seemed to diminish his notability as chess player.
--Otheus 10:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bios, indeed all articles here, are meant to represent the current state of affairs, so Google is indeed a good indicator of of a person's current notability and your reasoning that "Google does not adequately represent material before 1992, before the WWW was conceived" is a non sequitur. It is easily verifiable and not in dispute that the preponderance of Sarfati's work in the last ten years has been in creationism, not chess or science, so representing anything else violates the undue weight clause of NPOV. FeloniousMonk 18:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Though I don't fully agree with the above, would you consider this as acceptable?
Jonathan D. Sarfati (born October 1, 1964) is a scientifically-trained creationist and master chess player. His writings on creationism have attracted attention from supporters and opponents.
This repositioning is done mainly for readability and accessibility, per WP:LEAD guidelines. --Otheus 15:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External Links[edit]

Hi,

I have removed 2 of the links on "opposing views." The first one (the AIC link) leads to "page not found." I'm guessing that it has been moved; maybe someone or myself can update this later. The other page (a science organision) does not mention Sarfati on the page itself. If there are "good" websites addressing Sarfati's claims, then they should be added. Does he have his own page on Talk origins?

DarthSidious 14:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Yoda[reply]

The view of the NAS on creationism is indeed relevant to a creationist's article, and the status of Sarfati as a practicing scientist has previously been discussed and found to be wanting, so adding him that category is not warranted, see archived dicussions. I've restored the NAS link and removed the category, but let the removal of the link that 404s stand. FeloniousMonk 04:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted to version that was protected to comply with existing consensus. 121.208.181.37 13:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although you are wrong, I can't really be bothered arguing over the "scientist" category. But the NAS link doesn't even mention Sarfati! Unless it includes a page on Sarfati himself, it should not be included. So I'm removing it. Do you think that any other page on WP follows your logic?

DarthSidious 07:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious[reply]

Letter to Nature[edit]

The submission to Nature was a paper, not a note. See the provided citation in article, and past discussion in Talk. 121.208.180.8 18:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also have a problem with note. Nature has articles, letters and communications (or similar). Where is this note terminiology coming from? i have reverted back to paper which seemed perfectly accurate. David D. (Talk) 18:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note is accurate, letters in Nature are not the same as a peer reviewed article in Nature, so we need to make the distinction. Also, please read the archives, this was previously discussed and part of an Arbcom case and has been long resolved and your reverting is not helping, particularly since our anon friend here, 121., is walking in the footsteps of a party banned by the arbcom ruling from editing this article. FeloniousMonk 19:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually FM, if I recall when this was discussed last time (prior to the Arbcom) the decision was made was that this was a paper. Letters are fully peer reviewed in Nature (Letters to the Editor or similar items are not). This is peer reviewed paper (it might make sense to note that Sarfati is one of many authors but that's a separate issue). JoshuaZ 19:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am no fan of creationists but to describe a letter to nature a note as FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs) is insisting on doing here appears to be a tactic to trivialise the work. Basically he is creationist baiting and that will make them a pain in the butt for everyone else too. I ask again where is your justification for calling this paper, and it is a paper, a note? David D. (Talk) 19:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey FM, i just thought you might actually think this is a letter to the editor? You do realise that Letters to Nature are not the same thing as letters to the editor, right? If not how can you edit war over something you have not even read? If you had read the paper you would have known it was not a note. David D. (Talk) 19:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My dad was always justly proud of his letter to Nature (link) I don't think calling these papers "notes" is at all helpful. Tim Vickers 19:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found the previous discussion on this topic Talk:Jonathan_Sarfati/dispute#D2 which may be of note. The consensus there seemed to be that "paper" was preferable to "letter". JoshuaZ 19:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beware the anon. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except in this case the anon is correct. David D. (Talk) 00:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tautology in first line[edit]

User:Orangemarlin, what is POV about the line I removed? My problem is that it is a tautology and adds nothing to the article. Every author in existence has attracted attention by their supporters and critics. If they hadn't they wouldn't have supporters and critics. And if they hadn't 'attracted attention' they would be sufficiently notable for WP. What does this sentence add to a reader's understanding of Sarfati? Ashmoo 14:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the creationism section[edit]

Does self-reproduction = agamogenesis? It (self-reproduction) was a red-link (I unlinked it). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 20:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the link he seems to be talking about molecules not cells. David D. (Talk) 20:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought, but "reproduction" kind of threw me. It reads much better now, thanks. (BTW, I added a link to Self-replication) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 21:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good link, I've never seen that article before now. David D. (Talk) 21:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Davescot banned him from uncommondescent! Midnight Gardener (talk) 16:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assorted Nitpicks[edit]

Just a couple of points to consider.

The statement that Sarfati has an advanced degree in chemistry seems inexact. Later in the article it states that he also has a Ph.D which is a postgraduate qualification but not a degree.

Also if he has a Ph.D then should it not be Dr. Sarfati?Colonial from the Middle Island (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are Francis Crick, Fred Sanger and Linus Pauling Dr. ##### in their articles? David D. (Talk) 16:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dude look in the manual of style, NO one should be called "Dr so and so" in an article regardless of their academic accomplishments. If you see other articles that describe someone as "Dr" then fix it. Midnight Gardener (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was a rhetorical question. David D. (Talk) 21:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Jonathan[reply]

I do see Jonathan Sarfati referred to as "Dr. Sarfati," and sometimes refer to him that way myself. Just fyi. 66.57.83.143 (talk) 09:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC) Whoops, wasn't logged in. the_paccagnellan (talk) 09:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of significant third party sourcing[edit]

Way too much of this article is sourced to the CMI website. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Added cites to chess 76.20.213.207 (talk) 20:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • One of which is not third-party, the other of which makes no mention of his doing so at creation(ist) conferences. I have therefore removed the claim that he is "known" for this, lacking a third-party source. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoscientist[edit]

Cartwright & Theobald 2001 cited in the article, "In conclusion, creationists who use Scadding (1981) to support their contention that vestigial organs are not evidence for evolution are using a paper published in a minor, eclectic journal that was refuted soon after it initially came out. They cite someone who was wrong as "proof" that they are right. As such, it is another example of poor scholarship performed for the sake of pseudoscience." In an article that discusses Sarfati's publications in purportedly scientific journals. If one's practice in a journal article is described as "poor scholarship for the sake of pseudoscience" one has been described as a pseudoscientist. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source does not, in fact, describe the subject as a "pseudoscientist. Per WP:BLPCAT, the category should be removed. -- 101.117.58.97 (talk) 06:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)101.117.58.97 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience probably contains more information than you ever wanted to know. Creationism is indeed pseudoscience, but to slap that label on someone is contentious and will offend a lot of people. Is it really worth starting an edit war over a category? It would probably be better for wikipedia if this category didn't exist. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've boldly jumped in with a proposed solution on the article. Seems to be an ideal solution. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 12:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it agrees with my own opinions on the subject... but it may not comply with Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. From my point of view creationism has no more validity than flat-earthism, but I realise that a lot of people think differently and would be offended by such a characterisation. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOV and WP:BLP require that we frame our articles from the mainstream view and are accurate to sources, not that we are nice to an article subject. Respectful, yes, and not perjorative either, which is why I don't like the label "pseudoscientist" in this context. I would suggest we try to incorporate the new category "Fruitloop" as another solution, or perhaps "Batshit insane ideas"? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 12:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging people as "fruitloop" would be a little unencyclopedic, don't you think? Wikipedia's strength is (or should be) giving solidly referenced facts. Simply expressing disapproval in Wikipedia's voice is counterproductive, which is why I don't like pejorative tags. They are also potentially a breach of libel law. -- 101.117.108.195 (talk) 22:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neither creationism nor evolutionism / Darwinism are "science" per se, but rather they are competing interpretive frameworks (worldviews) through which science is done. Science itself would refer to the basic facts that both frameworks are operating on. Example: the scientific fact would be the presence of a certain fossil in a certain stratum at a certain location. The interpretation would be either that it died there millions of years ago or that it was buried there as part of a global (Noahic) flood. For something to be "pseudoscience" it would have to misrepresent facts, rather than simply offering a different, albeit unpopular, interpretation of those facts as does the creation viewpoint.--Kanbei85 (talk) 21:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your first sentence is not a fact, but your own, massively underinformed viewpoint. Since we follow reliable sources and not the random opinions of random people on the internet, the article stays the way its is.
Misrepresenting facts is exactly what creationism does: "Scientist X wrote Y" can be a fact, and it can be a crude misrepresentation. When a creationist says "Scientist X wrote Y", it is practically always a crude misrepresentation. Either, instead of "Y", the scientist really wrote "In earlier centuries, people believed Y" or "Creationist Z says Y" or "Y*" which sounds simlar to laymen but is really totally different, or X is not really a scientist, or X is an expert for something else and was talking through his hat, or it is some similar slight of hand. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment here amounts to nothing more than a baseless, content-less accusation against (all?) creation scientists. A nice indication of your severe bias, and thus your motivation to want to keep this article non-neutral (see below discussion on non-neutral, irrelevant quote from Eugenie Scott). --Kanbei85 (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I heard all that before. Yeah, we reality-based editors are "biased" because we don't accept whatever bollocks some user wants to add to an article. Astrology, dowsing, perpetual motion, creationism, climate change denial, whatever. See below. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion that creation science is bollocks does not belong in the content of Wikipedia, which is supposed to be a fact-based encyclopedia, neutral in point of view. It's sad that I have to even argue that point. This is why there is such a problem with bad content online today. --Kanbei85 (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Creation science is clearly identified as an example of pseudoscience in WP:FRINGE, because Wikipedia is a fact-based encyclopedia and the facts don't support it. This talk page is absolutely not the place to try and argue about that. --tronvillain (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Arguing about creation science is not the point. The point is this article is not neutral or objective as a result of the pointless inclusion of a smear against one of Dr. Sarfati's works by someone who by all indications probably didn't even read it. This article is not about creation science, but rather is a bio page for a scientist, author and chess player. You have not given any reason why that non-sequitur belongs there, nor has anyone else. It's just a nice little jab against him because he holds an unpopular view that the editors here would like to ridicule.--Kanbei85 (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ad hominem arguments indicate that you aren't dealing with science anyway. Same with credentialist types of arguments. I'd object to calling it 'creation science'. It isn't science plain and simple. Same does however apply to Evolution. Both are philosophical points of views. And both are originally from theological debates. Still the background of authors has to be looked into. As far as Sarfati is concerned his ethnic background as well as his religious point of view shouldn't be ignored. It's clear that he had a Jewish background, but is he (still) a Judaist or not? Or is he a Christian? More specifics needed. 105.4.3.134 (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Book sources[edit]

Looking through the bibliography, I'm not finding sources for the books. Any help? --Pete (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2015 (UTC) This article looks to be an advert for book sales through CMI, from which most of the article is sourced (chess aside). --Pete (talk) 22:46, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jonathan Sarfati. 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: 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) 23:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jonathan Sarfati. 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: 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) 02:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Motion To Strike[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The following quote,

' Eugenie Scott and Glenn Branch of the National Center for Science Education called Sarfati's Refuting Evolution a "crude piece of propaganda". '

Is both irrelevant here and a clear violation of neutral tone. There is no reason to include this quip here, and certainly we could get into a long edit war if we wanted to start quoting things for and against Dr. Sarfati's work on here. I am moving to have this sentence removed completely. If no one responds I will take this action myself.

--Kanbei85 (talk) 12:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Kanbei85[reply]

No. Reliable source, true sentence. See WP:FRINGE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the source is reliable is not the point (and that is debatable based on your viewpoint). The point is that there is no reason to include it and it makes the article non-neutral. We might just as well include a quote by some other scientist about how great the work is! Whether Eugenie Scott likes 'Refuting Evolution' has no place in this article. Merely saying it is a 'true sentence' does not defend its inclusion here.--Kanbei85 (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored it. We aren't trying to be neutral, we are trying to have a neutral point of view " which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." As we are also a mainstream encyclopedia, our articles on fringe subjects are always meant to make it clear that the subject is fringe. Doug Weller talk 16:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my comments are clearly a waste of time because you've been told this more than once, but still choose to ignore it. Doug Weller talk 16:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is clearly biased enough against the creation viewpoint as it is; after all, since Sarfati's page links to the Creation Science page, which overtly and falsely calls it 'pseudoscience', I think it is clear enough that this topic is 'fringe'. There is simply no justifiable reason to include a random negative quote there by Eugenie Scott-- a complete non-sequitur! Just a blatant attempt to bash and downplay Dr. Sarfati's work in a supposedly 'neutral-point-of-view' encyclopedia. I maintain this sentence is out of place. If you want to make it clear the topic is 'fringe', there is a way to do that while still maintaining neutral tone and not calling Dr. Sarfati's work crude propaganda, which it is not. For example, a statement like, "Dr. Sarfati's views run contrary to mainstream scientific consensus". --Kanbei85 (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion on Sarfati's crude propaganda does not matter. Scott's does. Bye. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about anyone's opinion of Sarfati or his work! This is about maintaining a semblance of neutrality as an encyclopedia, which is supposed to be an unbiased source of information. If the concern is that the page must "make it clear" that it is a so-called fringe view, that can be achieved in a neutral way. Having that quote there is just terrible writing for an encyclopedia article. It reads more like a web article from a partisan newspaper site.--Kanbei85 (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting an accurate description of a fringe theory is no in any sense a violation of WP:NPOV. --tronvillain (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1) There is nothing accurate about that description. Have you read Refuting Evolution? It is well-researched and well-argued. Nothing crude about it, and it is not propaganda, either. I strongly doubt Eugenie Scott read the book herself. 2) It is still a non-sequitur. What Eugenie Scott thinks about Refuting Evolution does not belong in this supposedly neutral, fact-based section on Dr. Sarfati's work. While it is a 'fact' that Scott made that claim (I am assuming), the content of her claim is only an opinion, not a fact. --Kanbei85 (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Creationism is well established to be a pseudoscience. Removing valid criticism of a creationist text is clearly WP:PROFRINGE. And you realize that when you're reverted, you're supposed to discuss and see what the consensus is before undoing the revert, right?--tronvillain (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pseudoscience is a pejorative term used to dismiss opposing viewpoints. Truth is not decided by consensus-- any true scientist will tell you that. Please show me the scientific findings that have 'established' creationism to be a pseudoscience... But all of that is irrelevant here. The point is that your distaste for Dr. Sarfati's views is no excuse to spread libelous content on the bio page of a living person. Scott's attack on Sarfati is out of place here in this biography. Not a single person has been able to give a solid reasonable defense as to why that statement belongs there. Have you read the book? --Kanbei85 (talk) 19:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I told him he couldn't use BLP as a 3rr exemption and that he'd have to go to WP:BLPN, which he has. Doug Weller talk 19:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As far as sources go, BioScience is rock solid. If a peer-reviewed scientific journal is comfortable with the wording "crude piece of propaganda" then it is perfectly valid to quote this in wikipedia. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! Well that settles it, then! No, in reality a Darwinist, evolution-promoting publication such as that will be more than happy to smear the reputation of a prominent critic of theirs like Dr. Sarfati is. You either fail to understand, or refuse to understand, the highly divisive, partisan nature of this debate.--Kanbei85 (talk) 01:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In reality that is not the main focus of the publication at all. AIBS has far more important things to do than debate with fringe theorists, like, you know, actual science. Among credible scientists there is no "debate" or "controversy", this is an invention of those who see everything through the prism of Biblical literalism. And no, the statement "crude piece of propaganda" is not libellous, it is well within the "valid commentary" provisions of any libel laws. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's the No True Scotsman fallacy. "Credible scientists" here just means those you agree with, i.e. those who support mainstream consensus. How easily people are made to forget how many times the mainstream consensus has been proved wrong in the past. It should not be Wikipedia's job to aid in the smear campaign against consensus-challenging scientists and suppress scientific advancement in so doing. Dr. Sarfati does not deserve the demeaning treatment he's been given here. What a travesty.--Kanbei85 (talk) 01:57, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When did he last publish a paper in a reputable scientific journal? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, the No True Scotsman fallacy. The only journals you'll consider 'reputable' are those which tow the consensus line, of course! He is a frequent contributor to and editor of the Journal of Creation, which is a peer-reviewed scientific publication. Regardless, though, he has an earned Ph.D in a scientific field and recognized work in the area of Spectroscopy, which means he deserves to be treated with respect as a scientist and not unfairly labeled a 'crude propagandist' simply because his views are politically incorrect today.--Kanbei85 (talk) 11:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He wasn't labeled that by anyone as far as I can tell - that was their opinion of the book. And young Earth creationism is factually incorrect, not politically incorrect. --tronvillain (talk) 12:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Saying it is 'factually incorrect' is your opinion, and has to be demonstrated, not merely asserted via various bandwagon arguments and appeals to authority. Since Sarfati authored the book, and the book is being called 'crude propaganda' (incorrectly), then by extension the author of that work must be a propagandist, by definition.--Kanbei85 (talk) 12:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nice WP:SYNTH you have there. Saying that a book is "crude propaganda" is not saying that the person who wrote it is a "crude propagandist", because making the second statement has potential implications like it still applying and it being the only or primary thing about them. Similarly, saying that a movie someone once made is bad is not the same as saying the person who directed it is a bad director. --tronvillain (talk) 13:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, technically a person could write propaganda once in a while and not be overall a 'propagandist'; however in Sarfati's case, Refuting Evolution 2 is representative of the bulk of his work as a whole. If RE2 is propaganda, then Sarfati is most certainly a propagandist, as most of Sarfati's work has been aimed at defending the traditional, pre-Darwinian view of origins. Eugenie Scott's remark was itself a piece of crude propaganda, and there is no substantiation for it whatsoever. Her prominent position is no excuse for promulgating unsubstantiated smears against people she happens to disagree with, and similarly there is no excuse for promulgating that statement here on this page.--Kanbei85 (talk) 13:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are repeating yourself, and you are not convincing anyone because what you say does not hold water. Please actually read what people write, especially the links to the Wikipedia rules pages you are ignoring. Then read those rules pages and keep the rules. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should take your own advice here. That was not a response to anything I wrote.--Kanbei85 (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR. This appear to be entirely your own analysis: "Refuting Evolution 2 is representative of the bulk of his work as a whole. If RE2 is propaganda, then Sarfati is most certainly a propagandist, as most of Sarfati's work has been aimed at defending the traditional, pre-Darwinian view of origins." --tronvillain (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now we're really reaching for any excuse to criticize, aren't we? Actually, that 'analysis' may be mine, but I am not inserting that into the actual content of the article, now am I? it is also uncontroversial to anyone knowing anything about Sarfati's work.--Kanbei85 (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for Comment-- NPOV Dispute; Clear consensus?[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


According to user MaxBrowne2, "clear consensus" has been reached about the inclusion of the non-sequitur Eugenie Scott quote in Dr. Sarfati's bio. However, as best I can tell, it is a consensus of 3 or 4 people against one (myself), which is hardly a strong consensus. More importantly, though, no one has been able to give any reasonable defense as to why that quote actually belongs in Dr. Sarfati's bio! We need more than consensus here. We need a reasoned defense of including what appears completely out of place and unnecessarily disparaging towards Dr. Sarfati. This bio page is not a forum for debating creationism. Until such a time as a reasonable explanation can be given as to why that should be there, I believe it is appropriate to tag this article for POV.--Kanbei85 (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The entire section above is your explanation. If you don't think the local consensus is enough, a more appropriate action would be to start an RFC. clpo13(talk) 21:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will be happy to do so. Until it is resolved, though, the POV tag should be left in place. By quoting Scott's disparaging remark about Sarfati's book, this bio page has been turned into a forum for debating creationism. That is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia as well as the point of a bio page. Can you give any reason why it should be there?--Kanbei85 (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Safarti has made it his job to debate evolution, so it's only natural that he'd receive pushback from organizations and people who represent the scientific consensus. It would be less neutral to omit any criticism of his views. clpo13(talk) 22:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Criticism of creationism is more than well-represented already in the various pages here on Wikipedia. It does not belong on Sarfati's bio page, since the page is about Sarfati, not about creationism. Of course it's natural Sarfati would receive pushback. That is irrelevant to his bio.--Kanbei85 (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Describing "pushback" is a natural thing to do in a biography. We do it for Einstein; we do it for Darwin. It's part of the job of portraying a life. XOR'easter (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No to NPOV tag, yes to Scott — the article is written neutrally. Including the scientific community's response to his writing is an appropriate course of action. It is the very opposite of a non sequitur: literally, it follows. It does not turn the biography into "a forum for debating creationism" any more than mentioning Sarfati's dispute with Ross makes the biography a "forum" for debating between the different varieties of creationism. XOR'easter (talk) 22:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. Sarfati's debate with Ross is rightly mentioned because it is the subject of one of Sarfati's works. I don't see what that has to do with Scott's comment.--Kanbei85 (talk) 22:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If one would turn the article into a "forum for debating", so would the other. Neither of them do, and both of them are appropriate. XOR'easter (talk) 23:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your comparison with a brief mention of Hugh Ross in connection with one of Sarfati's books is inappropriate. While the entire book Refuting Compromise is dedicated to refuting Ross, no quote from Ross is contained, nor is one needed. It is not a standard practice to always include a rebuttal quote from someone who is being criticized by any work listed in a bio page! Yet, Eugenie Scott is mentioned only in passing in Refuting Evolution 2, and is not the actual subject of the work. Why is it necessary to quote her making a defamatory remark about the book? The answer is that it is completely unnecessary. If anything is needed at all, it could be reduced to a simple statement of "members of the mainstream scientific community have rejected Sarfati's work", and link to Scott's article if desired. It's called being objective and professional.--Kanbei85 (talk) 00:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have inadvertently made a good case for including Ross's reply to Sarfati. In addition, while you claim to be "objective and professional", you insist on labeling Scott and Branch's summary of Sarfati's book as "defamatory", which is only your subjective evaluation of it. Professionals quote, accurately and representatively. XOR'easter (talk) 00:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are ways of being non-objective simply with one's selection of what to quote and what to omit. This is a clear case of that. The quote is certainly defamatory, and non-scientific in nature. Calling Sarfati's work propaganda is not a scientific statement, but an inflammatory statement of opinion on Scott's part.--Kanbei85 (talk) 01:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I left a message for you on your talk page. Please carefully consider which path you choose to take. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is supposed to be a discussion, not just a voting popularity contest. Your comment above adds nothing to it.--Kanbei85 (talk) 23:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, it does add: the discussion at the BLP noticeboard is relevant, and it had not been linked here before. I am grateful to tronvillain for posting that link, as I had been unaware of it. Besides, noting one's agreement with prior !votes is standard practice in Wikipedia discussions, not an example of a "popularity contest". XOR'easter (talk) 23:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No to NPOV tag, yes to Scott and retain (and perhaps expand) mention that Jonathan Sarfati opposes Hugh Ross. It may be boring to most of us but to the creationists the question of whether creationist Sarfati or creationist Ross are closer to being right is important. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No to NPOV tag, yes to Scott and noting we have an editor who as he clearly couldn't get editors to agree here, he went, at my suggestin, to BLPN. He didn't get any further there so now he's asked for an RfC. Doug Weller talk 11:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No to NPOV tag, yes to Scott Starting an RfC over a tag and stating the obvious is a new low. Johnuniq (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to SNOW close Consensus is clear, editor has been blocked indefinitely, essentially for wasting the community's time. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I second the move to Snow Close. There is zero chance that Wikipedia will ever treat pseudoscientists who believe that everything was created in 7 literal days 10,000 years ago the same way we treat the actual scientists -- astronomers, physicists, geologists, paleontologists, etc. -- who have solid evidence that the earth is much, much older. This sort of thing just makes those creationists -- FSM bless them -- who calmly advocate for their position without being total asshats about it look bad. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:07, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

NOTE I've closed this as opinion seemed to be that this RfC was a waste of time. If anyone feels I have done the wrong thing, please contact me. Pincrete (talk) 19:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]