Wikipedia

Talk:Jonathan Sarfati/Archive 3

< Talk:Jonathan Sarfati
Latest comment: 18 years ago by Mathmo in topic Content dispute over 'Chess' section
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Content dispute over 'Chess' section

Latest comment: 18 years ago241 comments12 people in discussion

Is FIDE Master really that high?

One issue here seems to be how much emphasis should be on Sarfati's chess abilities. Note that there are over 4000 FIDE masters worldwide. Therefore, while it clearly should be mentioned, it does not need a large amount of emphasis. Thoughts? JoshuaZ 02:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding number of FIDE masters, Sarfati noted: "But I agree with Mr Parr that the FM titles are incredibly cheapened -- I speak as a player who earned the FM title the 'hard way'. It seems a matter of urgency to limit the zonal to players above a certain strength, not just those who can afford the entry fee and time off work" [1]. Sarfati's abilities, including a draw against Boris Spassky [2], and interest in both regular and blindfold chess, is well documented, and as such, strong emphasis is appropriate. agapetos_angel 04:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
As a matter of interest, I think he is only one of two masters in NZ. That kind of puts a perspective on the difficulty in getting it. I'll also note I could be wrong about the current numbers and stuff in NZ, because it has been many many many years since I was playing chess. And even then it was only semi-competitively for a year or two (gave it up due to turning to triathlons, which I still do to this very day). Mathmo 19:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
One would think that winning the championship of his country would count for something, as well as his obvious ability at blindfold chess.220.245.180.133 05:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Winning a game against Spassky is somewhat notable. After looking at the section again, I think the section is reasonable as it stands. Question: can everyone agree that we now have a consensus on that section? JoshuaZ 05:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
It was only a draw BTW. Yeah, I agree with you about it being reasonable as it stands.220.245.180.133 05:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I said it was a draw agapetos_angel 06:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
(laugh) I didn't know that there was a need for consensus on that section. But it was okay as it was. agapetos_angel 05:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC) PS. Maybe add back in the club captain bit first though. I dunno why it was dropped; there's nothing in talk to say it was disputed and it was sourced (shows he is still active in chess). agapetos_angel 05:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

According to our very own article on the topic, "The most usual way for a player to qualify for the FIDE Master title is by achieving a FIDE Rating of 2300 or more.", so it's far from clear Sarfati's especially stronger than the allegedly inflated norm. The chess club captain stuff seems to me to be pretty non-notable; there's certainly a whole lot of those in the world, and no-one would ever thinking of including him on WP solely on that basis (or on his chess activities at all, so the current length doesn't really seem proportionate). Alai 07:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Joshua already agreed that the section is reasonable. The request I made was for you to answer why you changed the header (see above) against the consensus that is standing. agapetos_angel 07:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Which isn't what I was commenting on here. Can we keep sections on-topic? Alai 07:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
It is on-topic (with a note to see above). Joshua, who made the point, now agrees that the dispute is not valid. Please read this entire section. agapetos_angel 07:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Would it shock you to learn I already had done so? You seem to have replied to my original point twice without in any way responding to it. Alai 08:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it would, because I assumed you hadn't read the section when you made an 'original point', arguing what had already been discussed and dismissed. But none the less: Regarding the FIDE, he was awarded that title and it is included on his AiG bio page, so it is noteworthy enough on those merits alone (it is more noteworthy, say, than Dawkins being called 'outspoken' in his intro and later in the article). Regarding the chess club captain, I can only assume it was inserted to support and provide source material regarding the introductory sentence (i.e., 2000 to present shows current keen interest). The proportion of the length is appropriate, I believe (how many licks does it take to get to the center ...), to the content contained within. If you will note his speaking schedule and conference attendance (multiple sources available online), you will see that there is often a chess exhibition with Sarfati, he is listed online in various recent local tournaments (which were not included in the article section), and evidently from that source, he still has a keen interest if he has been (elected?) club captain for 6 years running. He participated in Chess Olympiads, was a NZ champ, etc. There really isn't anything inflated about the section, with the possible exception of the parenthetical remark you edited out (and I don't have an opinion on that one way or the other). agapetos_angel 08:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Can we reach a consensus on this dispute? agapetos_angel 03:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Casse birthplace - parenthetical comment

In regard to my deletion of the parenthical comment in this section: if it's being implied here that the .au chess championship applied their own rules incorrectly, then cite it properly. Otherwise, what relevance does the birthplace of his opponent have? I ask, lest I be accused of "heavy handedly" redeleting this apparent non seq. Alai 08:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Some critics

Avoiding original research and POV, critics must resolve the 'some critics' in the 'Scientist?' section. Text preserved below for addition of reputable sources: agapetos_angel 11:14, 27 January 2006 (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 agapetos_angel 21:41, 27 January 2006 (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 agapetos_angel 07:02, 30 January 2006 (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.
"Some critics" are weasel words, and as such, to be avoided [3].220.245.180.133 09:05, 30 January 2006 (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. — Dunc|☺ 21:56, 27 January 2006 (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. 58.162.252.236 23:18, 27 January 2006 (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 [4] (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. agapetos_angel 00:24, 29 January 2006 (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? agapetos_angel 01:13, 29 January 2006 (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 agapetos_angel 01:50, 29 January 2006 (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.220.245.180.134 04:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Shame on Duncharris for exposing his own POV. Not only is Sarfati a scientist he is a brilliant scientist. [5] David D. (Talk) 08:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
That may be true, but "brilliant" is also POV. Duncharris is clearly very bitter towards Dr Sarfati for reasons known only to himself.220.245.180.133 08:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
(reducing indent) Beloved Angel (or messenger, to be more precise), you might want to stop obsessing over this — you're hurting your cause. Jim62sch 02:39, 29 January 2006 (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? agapetos_angel 00:19, 30 January 2006 (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" agapetos_angel 00:19, 30 January 2006 (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. Jim62sch 02:42, 30 January 2006 (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?220.245.180.134 04:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Jim, you are missing the point. I started this discussion[6]. 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). agapetos_angel 06:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
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?
*These IP's are too close for coincidence and one wonders if there isn't some sock- or meat-puppetry at play here. Jim62sch 14:12, 30 January 2006 (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)agapetos_angel 18:28, 30 January 2006 (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. agapetos_angel 07:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

AA - you have yet to make any convincing argument for the whitewash. Please try actually addressing what Dunc had to say. Guettarda 07:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I addressed Dunc. He did not support his POV with sources. You have involved yourself without answering the points. agapetos_angel 08:18, 30 January 2006 (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. Guettarda 08:03, 30 January 2006 (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. agapetos_angel 08:18, 30 January 2006 (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. Guettarda 08:35, 30 January 2006 (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. agapetos_angel 08:45, 30 January 2006 (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
So it is difficult to take 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.220.245.180.133 09:21, 30 January 2006 (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. Guettarda 14:38, 30 January 2006 (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.agapetos_angel 18:26, 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Guettarda 01:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Weasel words and phrases cannot be verified. Until someone show sources and removes the weasel phrases, it absolutely should be removed as invalid content. agapetos_angel 05:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Sentence 1

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? 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)? agapetos_angel 21:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Come on then, answer agapetos_angel! If it is not sourced, it must come out.220.245.180.133 01:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Critic and supporter are weasel words? Ohhhkkaaayyy. Jim62sch 23:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
So what's your point? Weasel words are neither inherently verifiable nor unverifiable. Guettarda 01:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
That's why they are not allowed. Evidently Guettarda cares nothing about what the rules actually state. 220.245.180.133 01:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
220.245.180.133 So do you think that the link to talkorigins.org below would help source this or no? JoshuaZ 01:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

(reducing indent) See Verifiablity section. I am requesting that discussion cumulate there for clarity and to avoid continued repetition. Thank you.agapetos_angel 02:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Sentence 2

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? Guettarda 21:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
The fact remains that the assertion is unsupported and has nothing to do with the Sarfati article. 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.. 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? 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. 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? 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. 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? 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. 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?" JoshuaZ 23:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
There is far better support for the ounter-claim that almost all scientific research has nothing to do with origins or the age of the earth. E.g., take Dr Sarfati's own field—what difference would it have made to his papers on superconductivity or spectroscopy if he had been an evolutionist?

(reducing indent) See Verifiablity section. I am requesting that discussion cumulate there for clarity and to avoid continued repetition. Thank you.agapetos_angel 02:41, 2 February 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.
You are insisting it must be deleted immediately. Please explain why you think so. Is it false, or unverifiable? 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. 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? — Dunc|☺ 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. 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? — Dunc|☺ 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. 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? agapetos_angel 22:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
It's boring and tiresome for Dunc|☺ to keep harping on about lack of publication in secular journals when many of them have explicitly stated that they would not publish creationist materials. And JoshuaZ is right, TJ really is a peer-reviewed journal with Ph.D. scientists reviewing articles. Indeed, Sarfati himself has responded to similar specious charges:
220.245.180.133, you misinterpret my statement. In fact, the claim that one is being shut out of the mainstream journals is one of the standard hallmarks of pseudo-science. Furthermore, TJ is not a peer reviewed journal by any reasonable defintion. Among other problems, it only publishes papers which are pro-YEC, and there is zero evidence of any genuine critical reviewing of papers which are published in it by experts in the relevant fields (note, I'm not claiming that they need to be Ph. D.s in some fields there are some well-regarded experts who it is considered acceptable to do peer-review even if they don't have a Ph. D. in the field. The topologist Andrew Casson would be a prominent example). Please don't turn this talk page into a YEC v. other views discussion. There are better forums for that, like the usenet group talk.origins. JoshuaZ 04:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
But all this nonsense that “creationists don’t publish in refereed journals” is really the last refuge of those who can’t refute the arguments. And they know perfectly well that overtly creationist papers are almost always censored. One “intelligent design” paper that slipped through the “paper curtain” was Dr. Stephen Meyer’s one on the origin of basic types in the Cambrian explosion, published in the peer-reviewed journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. However, groups like NCSE wrote to the journal railing that the article was substandard—before they’d even read it ... Then the Biological Society’s governing council backtracked, claiming that had they known about it beforehand, they “would have deemed this paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings,” and promised that “Intelligent Design … will not be addressed in future issues of the [journal].” So it’s ironic for evolutionists like Scott to pontificate that a scientific movement must publish a peer-reviewed article in order to be considered legitimate, and then turn around and complain that it wasn’t legitimate for a journal to publish any peer-reviewed article from that movement![7] 220.245.180.133 01:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
You may want to see the Wikipedia entry on that controversy. It has some interesting details that you may not be aware of. JoshuaZ 01:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Do tell. The point remains that this journal has made it clear that it won't publish ID material, at the urging of leading atheistic anticreationists. So how dare these leading atheistic anticreationists then turn around and attack ID as unscientific for not being published, the bigots.220.245.180.133 07:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Really? What ID material? Please, point me to a single piece of research into ID. There is none. "How dare they"? Your manufactured outrage is laughable. Guettarda 13:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
220.245.180.133, the term bigot seems a might bit strong. In any event, see my response in the "OEC rebuttals and other OT conversation" section below. I suggest that all further OT comments go in that section. Now, can we please get back to the relevant issues? JoshuaZ 01:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

(reducing indent) See Verifiablity section. I am requesting that discussion cumulate there for clarity and to avoid continued repetition. Thank you.agapetos_angel 02:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Sentence 4

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. 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? 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. 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. 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? 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? 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. 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. 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? 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. agapetos_angel 22:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
(<- even worse colon problem(and I'll avoid any puns since they can sometimes cause digestive problems) So 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 not sufficiently well known in this context? JoshuaZ 06:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

{is a reducing indent considered a colonic?) It's not up to me to assert whether a claim is sufficiently well known or not. If it were so sufficiently well known, wouldn't someone, somewhere, be able to produce anything more than one biased source? (see the other discussion--we are repeating ourselves here) agapetos_angel 05:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC) (reducing indent) See Verifiablity section. I am requesting that discussion cumulate there for clarity and to avoid continued repetition. Thank you.agapetos_angel 02:41, 2 February 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 [8], 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? Guettarda 19:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Content is supported by the link. Seems fine. 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. 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. 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.) agapetos_angel 21:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

(reducing indent) See Verifiablity section. I am requesting that discussion cumulate there for clarity and to avoid continued repetition. Thank you.agapetos_angel 02:42, 2 February 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.[9]
It follows immediately from the previous cited material. Why do you believe that is must be deleted immediately? 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. agapetos_angel 21:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

(reducing indent) See Verifiablity section. I am requesting that discussion cumulate there for clarity and to avoid continued repetition. Thank you.agapetos_angel 02:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Sentence 7

It follows immediately from the previous cited material. Why do you believe that is must be deleted immediately? Guettarda 21:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
This is redundant. Redundancy should be deleted, immediately or nearly immediately, to avoid cluttered articles. agapetos_angel 21:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
It isn't redundant - it fits in with all the rest of the material which you refuse to produce any rationale for immediate removal. Guettarda 13:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I have not refused to produce anything. Please see my numerous explanations on this Talk, that show that the section contains many unsourced and/or unverifiable assertions. There is a whole section you are participating in at the bottom of this page concerning verifiability. How can you support that I am refusing to produce anything? Mandatory wikipedia policy provides the rules for immediate removal. (See below) agapetos_angel 00:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
These "numerous explanations" boil down to "cited" and "weasel words" repeated ad nauseum, orbis sine fine, amen. The horse is dead, stop flogging it. Jim62sch 00:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

(reducing indent) See Verifiablity section. I am requesting that discussion cumulate there for clarity and to avoid continued repetition. Thank you.agapetos_angel 02:42, 2 February 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 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. 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? 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 ...". agapetos_angel 21:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
So if I understand you, in order to use "some " we must link to at least   sources for some  ? At this risk of being impolite, that's ridiculous. What value of   is acceptable?  ?  ? JoshuaZ 21:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
It may be ridiculous to you, but it is wikipedia policy regarding weasel words (like 'some'). agapetos_angel 21:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
So under your interpretation of the wikipedia guidelines, what number is the minimum acceptable number? JoshuaZ 21:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Please review the policy here. It suggests ways to revise weasel statements to acceptable (by policy) standards [10]agapetos_angel 21:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
agapetos_angel First, please bear in mind that these are guidlines which make suggestions, not absolutes. Second, I would still like to hear what value of   where minimal generalization is allowed. For example, would you mind if it were phrased as "some critics, such as talkorigis.org author ..."? JoshuaZ 06:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, because the guide clearly outlines how to avoid 'some critics' and 'some supporters' by citing actual sources that make a viewpoint. That also avoids OR and POV, as it gives the (hopefully) NPOV that critic(s) and supporter(s) say such and such, rather than asserting a point and using 'some x's' to give it false authority. Style guides are in place to keep such POV pushing from being used. I'm not a math teacher, and am not an authority on value of   ;) agapetos_angel 05:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
(reducing indent) "because the guide clearly..." Guide. Guide. Not a rulebook. Not codified. Not carved in stone. Not a prohibitory edict. Just a guide. Jim62sch 00:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

(reducing indent) See Verifiablity section. I am requesting that discussion cumulate there for clarity and to avoid continued repetition. Thank you. agapetos_angel 01:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Sentence 9

It follows immediately from the previous cited material. Why do you believe that is must be deleted immediately? 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. agapetos_angel 21:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
It supports the previous statement, the immediate removal of which you have refused to make a case for. Guettarda 13:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Again, please show how I have refused to make a case. I object to this on the basis that I have shown wikipedia mandatory policy. agapetos_angel 00:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Mandatory policy? Here's one WP:DENSE. Jim62sch 00:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Would you like to please contribute sources and revisions, rather than personal attacks via weblink? agapetos_angel 01:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

(reducing indent) See Verifiablity section. I am requesting that discussion cumulate there for clarity and to avoid continued repetition. Thank you.agapetos_angel 02:43, 2 February 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. [12]"
It follows immediately from the previous cited material. Why do you believe that is must be deleted immediately? 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. 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? 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. agapetos_angel 21:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
If you are sorry I feel that way, why have you repeatedly ignored the relevant question? 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. agapetos_angel 22:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
So, what cause do you have for immediate removal? Why not answer the question posed to you for once and quit repeating your point which does not address the questions? Guettarda 13:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
See the verifiability section below (as well as my other numerous answers to why mandatory policy dictates immediate removal). agapetos_angel 00:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
See above sections. Jim62sch 01:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
To clarify, I meant 'see the verifiability section' in an effort to stem unweildy and repeatively Q&A. I've asked that the discussion be moved to that section to deal with the points one by one, the main one being that the section fails the verfiability test as a whole. Thanks agapetos_angel 02:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

(reducing indent) See Verifiablity section. I am requesting that discussion cumulate there for clarity and to avoid continued repetition. Thank you.agapetos_angel 02:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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).agapetos_angel 19:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
And your edit removed the NPOV that Sarfati is a YEC. Your point then? 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. 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. agapetos_angel 20:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Bullying? Are you kidding? Anyway, repetition of pro forma objections does nothing to clarify your points. 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.220.245.180.133 01:41, 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." [13]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. 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: [14]. You're very welcome. Now please reinstate the box for the section that includes weasel words. agapetos_angel 23:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Some is not a weasel word. Why precisely do you feel that it is? 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 examples of weasel words/phrases. It's not my feelings, but rather wikipedia guidelines. 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. 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.220.245.180.133 01:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
220.245.180.133, how many sources would you like before you consider some to be acceptable?
Mr. "I wish to keep my identity secret", your POV is becoming clearer with each post. Activist judges? Huh? This lashing out rather than engaging in true discussion bodes ill for this article. Just a reminder, this article is not here to pay homage to Sarfati, but rather to present his works, qualifications, affiliations, stances, etc., in as NPOV a manner as is possible. Jim62sch 10:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Is Jim62sch your given name? "I baptise you, Jim62sch, in the name of ..." (smile). Regardless, that is OT to the discussion of the article. I agree with the NPOV manner, so can we please get back to discussing that? Thanks. agapetos_angel 05:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
It is certainly much closer to a real name than 220.245.180.133 -- an alias is one thing, hiding behind an IP is recreancy. Additionally, I'm not so sure that the identity of the anon editor is OT, it may very well be on topic. Jim62sch 01:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of your viewpoint on levels of anonymity, it's still a personal comment rather than a comment on content, and I'd respectfully ask that you discontinue. agapetos_angel 01:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC) <-- not my real name either (laugh)
Jim62sch, an anonymous IP is not intrisically a bad thing. Note also that often when people are in fact engaging in dishonest behavior they do in fact register multiple names - see the Jason Gastrich affair. If one in fact wanted anonymity a registered account would probably serve better. That said, given the edits and comments 220.245.180.133 has made (a long with ones that 220.245.180.134 has made in other entries (I think I can reasonably assume they are the same person)), I am having trouble having what I consider to be reasonable discussion with 220.245.180.133 given his extreme POV and apparent refusal to listen. Hopefully this will improve. JoshuaZ 01:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, the post above this asks an excellent question: "how many sources would you like before you consider some to be acceptable?". Please answer it directly. Jim62sch 10:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The direct answer to that question is that there are no sources and therefore it does not meet the Wikipedia verifiability requirement. agapetos_angel 00:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I think that this section of the page on Weasel Words may be relevant(I have slightly modified formating for clarity):
As with any rule of thumb, this guideline should be balanced against other needs for the text, especially the need for brevity and clarity. Some specific exceptions that may need calling out:
  • When the belief or opinion is actually the topic of discussion. For example, "In the Middle Ages, most people believed that the Sun revolved around the Earth."
  • When the holders of the opinion are too diverse or numerous to qualify. For example, "Some people prefer dogs as pets; others prefer cats."
  • When contrasting a minority opinion. "Although Brahms's work is part of classical music canon, Benjamin Britten has questioned its value." Brahms's importance is almost, but not quite, an undisputed fact; it's not necessary to source the majority opinion when describing the minority one.
A cursory reading of this section makes it seem like this section is covered under the exceptions list. 220.245.180.133 and agapetos_angel I am curious as to what you think about this. JoshuaZ 15:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
So, an admission that the section does indeed include weasel words. Even aside from the mutt that little Billy sleeps with, and the neighborhood's crazy cat lady (tm), I think showing sources to major organizations (like the AKC), the existence of multiple links to pet stores, pet adoption and "I love my pet" websites, etc. would support that dogs or cats as pets solicits very diversely held opinions (although I would argue with the either/or of that statement because some people would actually like both dogs and cats, but that's another issue that is OT). You would need to likewise prove that the exception you request applies because the assertions that go along with 'some critics' and 'some supporters' are as diversely held. I don't think you'll find the source support you need for that, especially in light of the fact that this discussion has gone on ad nauseam with only one suggestion of a source that the editor seemed reluctant to use (maybe because it is easily shown that that Talk Origin author is not an authority, and has been possibly been refuted in other sources?) It still remains that the section is OR until the weasel words can be removed and actual sources can be provided. Merely asserting an opinion, especially couched in weasel words, and adding POV synthesis, means the section needs to be deleted as OR. agapetos_angel 04:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I am not saying that it necessarily includes weasel words per say. However, even if it, it seems to easily be exceptional. The second bullet point seems highly relevant in this case. JoshuaZ 05:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
(per se) Asking for exception indicated the admission that exception was needed. Please show how it is 'highly relevant', especially in light of my request for sources for this supposedly 'too diverse or numerous to qualify' opinion. If it really is so diverse, you should be able to immediately come up with at least 5 reputable sources off-the-cuff that support those weaselly worded assertions in the section.agapetos_angel 05:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
See below under the verifiability header for more on this agapetos_angel 14:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Would 5 be compulsatory or arbitrary? Jim62sch 01:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Arbitrary of course, but the point I was making to Joshua remains the same. This discussion was moved to the verifiability header because it's becoming unweildy (i.e, having to repeat the same answer, because the same questions are being asked ad nauseam) agapetos_angel 01:49, 2 February 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? 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. agapetos_angel 21:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Requesting further sourcing

"He has also had papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals..." Aside from the Nature article, what were the other papers? Jim62sch 11:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • G.R. Burns and J.D. Sarfati: ‘Raman spectra of tetraphosphorus triselenide doped in tetraphosphorus trisulfide’ Solid State Communications 66:347–49, 1988.

Times cited: 2 (both self cites)

  • G.R. Burns, J.R. Rollo, and J.D. Sarfati: ‘Raman spectra of the tetraphosphorus trichalcogenide cage molecules P4S2Se and P4SSe2’ Inorganica Chimica Acta 161:35–38, 1989.

Times cited: 1 (self cite)

  • G.R. Burns, J.R. Rollo, J.D. Sarfati and K.R. Morgan: ‘Phases of tetraphosphorus triselenide analysed by magic angle spinning 31P NMR and Raman spectroscopy, and the Raman Spectrum of tetraphosphorus tetraselenide’ Spectrochimica Acta 47A:811–8, 1991.

Times cited: 6 (two self cites)

  • J.D. Sarfati and G.R. Burns: ‘The pressure, temperature and excitation frequency dependent Raman spectra; and infrared spectra of CuBrSe3 and CuISe3’ Spectrochimica Acta 50A: 2125–2136, 1994.

Times cited: 5 (all outside cites)

  • J.D. Sarfati, G.R. Burns, and K.R. Morgan: ‘Crystalline and amorphous phases of tetraphosphorus tetraselenide’ Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids 188:93–97, 1995.

Times cited: 2 (both outside cites)

For some reason the nature paper is not in the citation index, although it is real. The five papers above have a total of 11 independent citations. Possibly the description of Sarfati as a brilliant scientist [15] by AiG is a little bit of hyperbole on their part? Although he certainly should be described as having been a scientist. David D. (Talk) 14:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

None of them on radiometric dating techniques? Now there's a surprise. I think the Nature article is authored under "J Sarfati" rather thatn "J.D. Sarfati" which might explain why it's missed. There's a J. Sarfati who has some pubmed entries but they're all on the biology of Aspergillus fumigatus, so I guess he's just got an unfortunately coincidental name. — Dunc|☺ 14:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Still no nature paper. I was using 'web of science', it is possible their citation index does not go back beyond 1988. David D. (Talk) 15:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
So, if we include the Nature article, we have 6 papers? This gives him an h-index of 2 (and I didn't even exclude the self cites), versus Edward Witten (who truly is brilliant) who has an h-index of 110, Steven Weinberg (who is also brilliant) 88, Stephen Hawking (ditto) 62 and so on. I mean yes, this makes Sarfati a published scientist (of sorts) but not exactly one to right home about. Jim62sch 16:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
First, let me apologize in advance for this highly off topic inquiry. What is the average h-index for physical chemists? My impression is that for areas of research that I am more familiar with (especially various branches of mathematics), the average h-index of anyone at all significant is much higher than 2. (Also, I note before Agapetos does that including details about Sarfati's h-index in comparison to other physical chemists would possibly constitute OR) JoshuaZ 21:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Much higher than 2. The general standard (at least for physics) is 25 is pretty good, 50 is very good, 75 and above is outstanding. (The h-index in biology has even higher standards). BTW: I was not suggesting that the h-index be included in the article - far from it. I was making a point in agreement with Daycd. Jim62sch 00:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
It could be that the very real science that seems to be in those papers is on compounds that few people would want to cite, so is more "pure" research. Presumably the science of spectroscopy of P4S2Se is just as good as the spectroscopy of, say, high Tc superconductors, but fewer researchers would be interested. But since no editor has put "brilliant" into the article, this point is moot.220.245.180.133 05:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
And just as well, because I'd object that 'brilliant' is POV (subjective to the beholder) agapetos_angel 05:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
But the fact that AiG does call him brilliant sets the scene for this whole debate. He is not a brilliant scientist. He is not an expert on evolution or radiometric dating. Why should his word carry more weight that the scientific community that, apparently, chooses to ignore him and AiG?
Is he a scientist? Yes. Does his scientific analysis of evolution carry any weight? No. If your answer to the latter is yes, then why do his conclusions carry more weight than people that do research in the specialist areas of radiometric dating, paleontology and evolution? This is the major flaw in creationist arguments with regard to science. They appeal to authority (AiG has X number of scientist etc.) but they then choose to ignore the conclusions of 99.5% of scientist in those specialist areas. How convenient. They claim to have all the answers to prove science wrong yet have none to offer when challenged to do so (at least I saw none in Dover). Why are they holding back all the good stuff?
To get back on topic, the section themed is he a scientist is valid because it counters all the assertions made about this supposed expert witness. He is an expert in some areas of his life, sure, but not the ones that count for his creationist arguments. David D. (Talk) 05:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

(reducing indent) David, besides POV pushing, I think that you are battling Don Quixote's windmills. I already said that I think that 'brilliant' does not belong in this article because it is POV. You may have issue with AiG calling him 'brilliant', but since it's not in the article (and I don't believe ever has been), it's a moot point that is better addressed with AiG than here, because it has nothing to do with the section disputed entitled "Scientist?". The topic wasn't "is he an expert in x", but "is he a scientist". You said, "Is he a scientist? Yes." So mark another vote as positive regarding the actual dispute. (And the weasel phrases remain still without reputable sourcing.) agapetos_angel 06:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I do agree he is a scientist, so the dispute appears to be that the section heading should be changed. The main thrust of the section is valid i.e. "Thus, some critics find it reasonable to question his knowledge in apparently unrelated fields- namely the creationist perspective in biology and astronomy." You claim these are weasel words? I do find it interesting that scientists have not wasted time putting their criticisms in print, however, a lack of response from scientists does not make these weasel words. If anything it amplifies his lack of authority and standing in these fields. He seems to be a null with regard to published scientific opinion. David D. (Talk) 07:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
'scientists have not wasted time putting their criticisms in print' - then who are the 'some critics'? agapetos_angel 07:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Bioscience article

The 99.5% of biological and geological scientists that are ignored by AiG of course. This is outlined in the following source. Scott and Branch 'Antievolutionism: Changes and Continuities.' (2003) BioScience: Vol. 53, No. 3, pp. 282–285.[16]

"Refuting Evolution 2 (Sarfati 2002) is a crude piece of propaganda. But there are over 350,000 copies of its predecessor in print, according to AiG, so its shoddiness is no excuse for complacency on the part of the scientific community."
"The second book-length attack on the Evolution series, Getting the Facts Straight (DI 2001), was produced by the Discovery Institute, notorious as the institutional home of the intelligent-design form of antievolution. More literate, more subtle, and less shrill than Sarfati's book, Getting the Facts Straight is still a highly unreliable guide to both the history and the science of evolution."

Were you already aware of this reference? I note that they are also frustrated by the "complacency" of the scientific community. David D. (Talk) 07:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

So with this source you have a specific and reputable critic that replaces the weasel phrase "some critic"? agapetos_angel 08:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC) P.S. It's also a bad link.
Sorry about the link you'll probably need a subscription since i got it through a University connection. If you send me an e-mail I will be happy to reply and send you the pdf. With regard to does it address "some critic", I suggest it is at least two. Are more than two required? They are also representing a science related organisation, so one could say they represent the community. Not to mention that they chastize the scientific community for being apathetic with respect to countering Sarfati. These all seem to be pertinent points. Whether it specifically calls Sarfati unqualified is questionable although it is quite clear they describe his work is shoddy and shrill. David D. (Talk) 08:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Revised link also doesn't work (it does need subscription, and as such, cannot be accessed by general public). Can you link directly to the PDF so editors/viewers don't have to all email you for copy of the source. Statements in the Sarfati article should reflect statements in sources, so if the presently occuring statement following 'some critics' and following 'some supporters' isn't in a reputable source that can be referenced and validated, then it has to be considered 'weasel' and deleted/replaced with a statement that follows guidelines and can be verified. Your source sounds like an entirely different statement/idea (and one, I agree, is questionable by your reprint). So if you want to put in a new sourced statement and rework that section to remove all weasel phrases, 'let's see what ya got' agapetos_angel 09:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I can't link directly to it since you need an account to access the journal. It will be available at libraries if people want it. Are you saying that Bioscience is not a reputable source or that the statement following 'some critics' is not addressed by this source? I think the latter and if so i think these quotes can be used to write a section that will be well sourced. David D. (Talk) 10:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the latter. Sorry for the lack of clarity. agapetos_angel 10:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


Mediation requested

I have 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. 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. 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. agapetos_angel 20:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


Verifiability

Wikipedia:Verifiability states that "3. The obligation to provide a reputable source is on editors wishing to include information, not on those seeking to remove it."[17]. Until such time that this policy is met, the section currently entitled 'Scientist' should be removed for lack of verifiability coupled with reliance on weasel phrasing as the support for the entire section. This is further born out by the cite your sources section that states "If the article has many unsourced statements that have been there a long time, you may request sources on the talk page before removing them, unless the article or information is about a living person, in which case remove the unsourced information" (emphasis mine). This is mandatory policy. Please adhere to it until such time as editors can provide sources and/or rewrite the section with appropriate sourcing. Thanks agapetos_angel 10:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The information that you are complaining about isn't about a person. It's about critics/supporters. You are wilfully misinterpreting policy. Please stop. Guettarda 13:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
That is an incorrect assessment. The unsourced information is about Sarfati. That it is attributed to anon critics/supporters and is unsourced is the reason that it is unverifiable. Can you provide sources for the assertions? If not, it should be deleted according to the verifiability policy. (Also, I respectfully request that this discussion be about content rather than personal commentary directed at me--i.e. "willfully"--Thank you) agapetos_angel 13:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
No, you are wrong. What there could be libel? Guettarda 13:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
(1) The anonymous assertions are unsourced and (2) the anonymous assertions are, well, anonymous. This alone puts it in the range between gossip and libel. Furthermore, as there are no sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability is violated. Please tell me how you believe I am wrong. With all the text on this talk page, no one has supplied even one source that verifies the anonymous assertion. cite your sources: "If you doubt the accuracy or origin of an unsourced statement that has been in an article for a long time, delete it or move it to the talk page." agapetos_angel 13:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Can you improve the section, including sources and lack of anonymous weasel phrases, rather than reverting it back to this original, disputed form? agapetos_angel 13:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Um, the talkorigins.org source I gave earlier seems to go a fair bit in the direction of further sourcing this(not that I am claiming that it is not sourced enough as is). In any event, as soon as I have time at the end of this week, I will try to post a suggested more sourced version that should make agapetos_angel happy. In the meantime, the section should be left as is. JoshuaZ 14:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The goal is not to make me happy, but to conform to wikipedia standards and mandatory policy with an article that is well-written. Does the talkorigins' source state (perhaps implicitly) the 'some critics' statement? If so, do I understand your view that 'some critics' in that sentence should be replaced with 'Talk origins author Dave Moore has the opinion ..." (or similar), thereby adding the necessary attributation and source? What source(s) have you found for the 'some supporters'? You suggested that the 'section should be left as is', but have not explained why mandatory wikipedia policy should be ignored in this instance. agapetos_angel 23:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
-- As a temporary compromise, I've added the 'unsourced' tag to that section to show that it does not meet Wikipedia standards. The unverified/unverifiable bits currently read: "Critics and supporters (weasel) ... often disagree (unsourced)... is considered (unsourced) ... almost all scientists (unsourced) ... Supporters (weasel) ... would argue (unsourced) ... Another issue (unsourced) ... some critics (weasel) find (unsourced) ..." agapetos_angel 00:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

(reducing indent) 10:45, 2 February 2006 Jim62sch commented: "removed tag -- what do you think all those little numbers at the end of sentences mean?" Jim, in the interest of consensus, could you please explain why you feel each of the many unsourced and weasel statements illustrated directly above are verified in the section as it currently stands? And why the tag is an inappropriate compromise? Thank you agapetos_angel 00:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

A compromise is not realized by a single editor slapping an inappropriate tag on an article. A compromise results from various proposals being discussed and a consensus being reached. Jim62sch 11:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
As originator of this discussion over disputed content, I respectfully request that the discussions that were being repeated ad nauseam by both sides be moved to this section in an effort to clarify for mediator. Thank you agapetos_angel 02:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Recapping this issue for clarity

The 'Scientist?' section is contested for failing to meet the wikipedia:verfiability policy as a whole, because it is contended that the minor bits that are sourced have no place in the article (for reasons of redundancy or irrelevancy), especially when the rest of that section is removed for not following wikipedia policy. The unverified/unverifiable bits currently read: "Critics and supporters (weasel) ... often disagree (unsourced)... is considered (unsourced) ... almost all scientists (unsourced) ... Supporters (weasel) ... would argue (unsourced) ... Another issue (unsourced) ... some critics (weasel) find (unsourced) ...". The section remains in violation of that mandatory policy, and against the submission by this editor of regulation showing it must be removed because Sarfati is living. Two tentative sources, that do not seem to bear out any unsourced statements in the section, have been proposed, but not added in an edit. Therefore, I contend that this entire section is OR because it proposes arguments and adds analyses that are not sourced, with the sourced material used as filler to give an appearance of respectability to the section. agapetos_angel 03:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Removing valid content under the guise of 'reverts'

Latest comment: 18 years ago18 comments5 people in discussion

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? 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. 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. 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.220.245.180.133 01:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

(reducing indent) Joshua, your revert has been reverted (again) by the editor who thinks his version is better (but didn't come here to say why he thinks it is better--strong evidence that it is POV pushing). The intro/header is the place for redundancy in summary to the rest of the article, as it tells you what to expect in the article. That is different than redundancy to inflate a weasel worded POV section. An example you may want to check is Richard Dawkins. The intro/header talks about him being an author, and later the article lists his books. It also talks about him being outspoken, an atheist, and a humanist, which are later reflected in the article. There was nothing wrong with having 'author' and 'editor' in the header (and I even provided sources to show it's valid), as it is silly to say that he is a writer and editor only in a certain context (which, BTW, is an inaccurate statement; Sarfati also writes about theology, chess, liberal v conservative politics, and other interests, as documented in the article), because even if that were so, it doesn't negate that he is both author and editor. It's like saying that John Grisham is 'most well known' for being a writer, so putting in a statement that he was/is a lawyer would be 'very poorly phrased'. The mangling of the header is not my doing. agapetos_angel 05:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Note that in the Dawkins' article it mentions what he is most well known for first. If you want to put it as YEC then author and editor, I'd be basically fine with that. But YEC should be mentioned first. JoshuaZ 05:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I actually thought that it was an ok consensus (YEC was in there before linked under Sarfati's sourced prefered phrasing: 'Biblical creationist'). What he is most well known for differs from group to group (chess players, for example, may not know anything connecting him to YEC), but I'd agree that it would be a primary knowledge and conceed that it was a better edit than Dunc's (especially as it actually removed the errors). However, as I said, Dunc doesn't appear to be interested in consensus, because he reverted you and said simply that his version was better. agapetos_angel 05:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I notice that 220 attempted to put in a header to meet this concensus, but Alai reverted it. Perhaps Alai would like to join in on this conversation to justify why the concensus that was reach is wrong in his/her opinion (I've requested he or she do so on user talk page). The mangling of that header is really offensive; "He has a ... and he is also a" reads like a schoolie wrote it. agapetos_angel 07:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
And there's a consensus for "scientist"? Methinks not, and that's old territory for this talk page, at that (and is inconsistent with even the rest of the article). That's why I reverted. Feel free to include "author". Alai 07:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Alai, please revert your own revert to avoid the appearance of an edit war (you removed it, and are okay with it being in there, therefore you should replace it). Actually, there is an emerging concensus for realizing that Sarfati is a scientist (see bottom of page - David D. 07:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)). You've entered midstream with your revert (aka thinking it is still 'old territory') agapetos_angel 07:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
But I have no desire to revert my own revert (and I'd have to get past numerous 220 reverts to do it), for the very "scientist" characterisation I've just objected to (which allegedly imminent consensus I don't partake of). If you mean, "rephrase to include 'author' but not 'scientist'", that's what I just invited you to do, so I don't see how it would constitute even the appearance of an edit war. Alai 07:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Because that is precisely what has been happening. If I edited you, someone (as has recently happened twice) will scream edit war and I will be blocked. I asked you kindly to replace content you do not dispute (author), and invited you to read where there is a consensus forming regarding other issues (scientist, and Joshua posting that on a re-read he no longer has an issue with the chess section). My polite request was to avoid any further bullying by other admins bent on blocking me or reporting me for blocking erroneously. Thank you. agapetos_angel 07:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, there's a certain logic to that (I shall take the bullying/erroneously stuff as standard disclaimer). But since the "heavy handed reverts" (to coin a phrase) have long since flowed the other way anyway... Alai 08:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Ah yes, bullying...oh, now who does that remind me of? Jim62sch 01:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

(reducing indent) Would any other editor agree that this section should be archived as consensus has been reached on the header, and this section is now degrading into ad hom? agapetos_angel 02:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

As this section started off with accusations of bullying, it's not clear it's descended anywhere. And quite clearly there's no consenus on the intro, the "PhD scientist" a) is misleading to the nature of his actual occupation, and b) a clumsy phrase at best. (Though one the subject's used to self-describe, I gather.) Alai 02:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Jim62sch's reply did not address content or policy; that was the reason for my question. There was an apparent consensus in place as the only editors discussing it in Talk came to agreement. As you appear to be registering a dispute of that consensus, perhaps you would start a new talk section regarding your dispute with the header? Thanks agapetos_angel 03:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I wonder what AA's definition of consensus consensus would be. I'm sure he's reached a consensus with himself, but with anyone other than anon, no.
As for addressing alleged "bullying", AA must have felt it was a legitimate topic given that he raised it. Interesting though, that when called on the assertion, he shifts gears. Jim62sch 11:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Participation of affiliated parties

Latest comment: 18 years ago18 comments6 people in discussion

Analogous to Wikipedia:Autobiography, the editing of an article involving a subject of organization in which one holds a personal stake often results in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing and disruption of the article. That said, I'm asking User:220.245.180.133 to disclose here his affiliation, if any, with Sarfati or AiG. I feel this is necessary as the IP 220.245.180.133 originates in Australia and User:220.245.180.133's intense focus on this particular article suggests a pov agenda and has become disruptive contrib list. FeloniousMonk 02:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Australia is large country from where many people originate. Also, 220.* did not create this article, and the 'aggressive' editing you mention has been well-sourced (even if it disagrees with your POV). 220. was one of the editors that objected to AiG's POV of 'brilliant' before scientist, so could hardly be seen as aggrandizing Sarfati. Please support your right to ask a user to reveal personal information of any sort in a public forum. Thank you. agapetos_angel 02:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
It's a reasonable question. You are not supposed to edit articles about yourself, or that you have too close a relationship with. It's a reasonable request, given that the IP appears to be so strongly attached to this one article. Quite reasonable. Guettarda 03:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, 220.* only agreed that brilliant would be POV, thats different than objecting to it. I think we can reasonably concude seems clear that 220.245.180.133 and 220.245.180.134 are the same. Taken together they show heavy emphasis on AiG related material in general and Sarfati in particular. Note also both entries also show occasional editing about other topics, especially anime. A cursory glance makes these appear to be about 20% of the edits. JoshuaZ 03:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Is saying brilliant is POV an objection? I say it is, but that's beside the point. agapetos_angel 03:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Australia is indeed a big country. Thanks for reminding us of that. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Malicious_editing enjoins editors to be on the lookout for the malicious editing and editors pushing a point of view. Arbitration rulings at Wikipedia have held that editors intimately involved in a subject are generally discouraged from editing those subjects. So my question is relevant and necessary. FeloniousMonk 03:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Recently perhaps, but 220 would not be the first person to be involved in one 'cause' at a time. I too have been involved heavily--as have other editors--but interest in a singular topic for a length of time isn't proof of anything other than a single-minded effort to make an article the best it can be. While it may be correct that both 220s' are the same user, that could be nothing more than dynamic IP (or two computers on the same network?). Contributions of both 220.245.180.133[18] and 220.245.180.134 [19] show that there is varied interest and editing on all sorts of different articles/topics. This seems to be an invalid assumption/question. Thanks agapetos_angel 03:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think WP:AUTO is actually anywhere strong enough to require such a thing (though wouldn't be a bad idea if it did). It's not an unreasonable request, though. But if he says "won't say", or "none", there's no a lot of followup that can be procedurally done, as I understand it. Can't really ask for checkuser on an anon, after all (even if there was a basis for such a request, which would only really be for 3RR-avoiding or vote-stacking sockpuppetry and the like). TPG Internet could be asked if the address bri-nxg-pr4.tpgi.com.au is local to Brisbane, but only if that's public info. Disruption there's clear policy on, and it doesn't require establishing anything about the identity of the editor. If such were to occur, or be thought to have occurred, I'd imagine an RFC would be the most appropriate venue, or possibly AN/I, depending on the alleged nature of same. Alai 03:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Not to pick on JoshuaZ (forgive me, Joshua), but to use him as an illustration of this point (only because he has been reasonably discussing the disputes from an 'anti-' position), I note that his contribution list (last 50 [20]) indicates 86% about Sarfati (7 of the 50 were not related to Sarfati; 1 was related, if not directly on the Sarfati article/talk). Joshua pointed out that 220's contributions are about 20%. No one is suggesting that Joshua, with the higher percentage of edits, has any affiliation to Sarfati, AiG, or even Australia. It's a moot point where someone is located because the WWW is just that, worldwide, and location does not dictate affiliation (AiG has offices in America, S Africa, Canada, etc.). Like I said above, it only shows single-mindedness in editing. agapetos_angel 03:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with Agapetos on this at least for now. However, independent of 220's affiliations, many of 220's edits (like the repeated ones about relevancy of the age of the earth) seem to be strongly against consensus. Since 220 seems to listen to you (agapetos_angel) it would be nice if you communicated to 220 that these edits are not productive. On another note, I intend to have a possibly reworked version of the Science? section in 36 hours or so and will post it to the talk page at that time. If I have enough time, I may post in the talk section certain other sections in slightly modified forms and see if we can agree/modify those to a consensus set. JoshuaZ 04:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you are getting at there, but 220, if you are listening ... (laugh). Seriously, now, can we all get back to the issues at hand regarding the dispute(s). I appreciate your time and effort, Joshua and look forward to a properly sourced section. Perhaps the other editors, especially in this section, would like to add to the Verifiability section with sources and helpful editing to come to a consensus that has compromise on both sides of the dispute, rather an ongoing speculation about editors' affiliations, locations, colour of underwear, or any other personal habits (smile). agapetos_angel 04:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I think my statistics, while very rusty, is about up to speed enough to suggest that you need a larger sample size. Your summary of the mootness of this point isn't entirely off-base, but is a little misleading. As I understand it, Brisbane is one of the two main sites of AiG operation. Brisbane is where 220.etc.etc.various appears to be editing from. I'll grant you Brisbane still meets the requirement of "a big place", but it's suggestive enough that the original question is not an unreasonable one. While it's pretty toothless, there is a reason for WP:AUTO, and indeed for Category:Notable Wikipedians, Category:Wikipedian autobiography and Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles. Alai 05:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Tpgi is Australia-wide [21]; the IP comes from NSW (not Brisbane, for those not familiar with Australian geography). agapetos_angel 05:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I gathered it was AU-wide, just though that IP name looked rather suggestive of "Brisbane proxy". I'd half-forgetten and half-misrecalled you mentioning this when someone seemed to think there were socks in the air, earlier. Wasn't someone or other from Victoria? whois is hanging waiting on whois.apnic.net for me currently, can you clarify how you determined this? Alai 06:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
From a whois. The IP comes up as TPGI/Victoria (sorry, my mistake: TPGI hostmaster is NSW). agapetos_angel 10:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Whether or not 220 is associated with AiG his behavior is getting rapidly more unreasonable. I have also just looked at his user talk page. Note that on that page he is listed with repeated warnings for vandalism and a block. If someone else (since I am getting close to the 3RR limit, and I'm not completely convinced that his behavior constitues vandalism) could kindly revert 220's POV comment about relevance to the age of the earth? Also, if this keeps up, we may want to talk to an admin or have a RfC. JoshuaZ 06:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Be careful with your accusations. Most of those warnings have nothing to do with me, but with another editor who shares my IP. It happened another time when that IP was blocked because of edits on a page I have no interest in.220.245.180.133 06:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
(ec)Well, to put my admin hat on briefly, I don't think it's directly sanctionable, though you can file an AN/I and see if someone more trigger-happy shows up. An RFC's an option, though I'd suggest you at least try contacting him directly first, and seeing if AA can prevail upon him (if he's inclined to try). Y'know, usual disp-res procedure type stuff. Alai 06:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

"Ph.D. scientist"

Latest comment: 18 years ago38 comments5 people in discussion

It's an on-going struggle to keep a phrase such as this out of the intro, and while AA says this reflects an emergent consensus, the impression I get (on my admittedly sporadic trips back to this article) is that it or some very similar phrase is inserted periodically, pretty much regardless. In its current form, it's very awkward-sounding; I've heard many people say "I'm a scientist", or "I've a Ph.D.", and somewhat less commonly, "I'm a Ph.D.", but I'm fairly confident I've never heard anyone say "I'm a Ph.D. scientist" (though as I mentioned, I do have a vague recollection of Sarfati being quoted in saying it in mid-debate). But more to the point, "scientist" is a poor choice of word in this context, as it makes obscure whether it's being used in an existential sense, or as a descriptor of his current occupation or activity. It also makes nonsense of the whole "is he a scientist" section later to declare presuppositionally (as it were) that he is. Much better, and much clearer, IMO, is to state his qualifications, his educational background, and his current occupation(s). Alai 03:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I did indicate what I saw as a concensus (Joshua saying he was okay with it, David saying twice that Sarfati was in fact a scientist) on the header before your edit. Can I have clarification on what you are disputing? The original dispute over inclusion of scientist in the header, if memory serves, started with edits to remove/replace 'scientist' in the original version of the article. This edit war instigated the currently disputed 'Scientist' section to 'answer' scientist in the header, then scientist was removed from the header anyway. I think, therefore, that any continued dispute over scientist in the header falls as a minor subtopic of the dispute of the article's 'Scientist?' section. If you are only disputing the wording of Ph.D. before scientist, I agree that Ph.D. might be overkill in the current phraseology (if it's stated same in article), and I think the header has been repeatedly mangled with edits and reverts, agreeing that it sounds funny in the last forms. Thanks agapetos_angel 04:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm disputing the word "scientist", "has a Ph.D" I'm entirely fine with; I thought that was fairly explicit in the latter half of my comment. I don't think it's either minor, or subsidiary to the section on whether he is, or not. The article should not be engaged in "self-rebuttal", regardless of the history of editing that may have led to such, and a good introduction should be readable in insolation, without having to be questioned, clarified or contradicted in the body. Please clarify why you think the "scientist" characterisation is preferable to my suggested scheme. Alai 04:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Alai, do you have a suggested rewording of the section? JoshuaZ 04:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I was just going to ask the same thing. I disagree that it is not connected, but I am willing to see 'whatcha got'. agapetos_angel 04:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Is Sarfati actively engaged in scientific research? If he is, you could call him a scientist. If he isn't, you could call him a scientist by training. "Science is a verb, not a noun". Any evidence that he is doing science? Guettarda 04:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Ungrammatical, but very apt. :) That's what I was trying to get at, viz my existential vs. descriptive distinction. Alai 04:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The first part is a quote (not sure of original source [22]). The second part, "doing science" is common, if ungrammatical, usage [23]. Guettarda 04:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
And OR on the part of the editors. agapetos_angel 04:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
It's OR to say he has a PhD in phys. chem.? I see no OR in the intro of this article (note emph). If you think this is OR, please take it up at Talk:Scientist. "A scientist is an expert in at least one area of science who uses the scientific method to do research." Note tense, and note tool. Alai 04:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
No. Let me clarify what I was saying. To say that Sarfati is not a scientist (voting on the side of exclusion) is OR on the part of editor who is determining that exclusion is based on failing to meet certain standards. It is up to us to report, not judge (i.e., avoiding POV). Is there dispute that the sources that show scientist should be included are reputable? What is the reason for removal/exclusion, one not characterised by an editor's POV or OR? It is POV for an editor to determine whether or not he is doing science (in any tense). agapetos_angel 04:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
"No original research is one of three content policies." "...determining the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace." "Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles..." Do any of those help? Alai 05:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
(ec)Yes, the one I just reverted to. :) I suggest this has the merit of factoring out current notable activities (what his "day job" is, and why this article exists, and significant but not highly notable background info. I'm not sure what you mean by not connected; the article is connected to the intro, obviously, and the two should correspond, equally so; but while it's not sensible to try to read the body, without the intro, the reverse shouldn't be true (at least ideally). I'm thinking particularly here of the benefit of summarisation. Whether there's a section on "is he a scientist?" should depend on whether that's a notable (and verifiable) debate, not on whether we happen to use the word ourselves in the intro (and I say that with genuinely no fixed view on whether this section is needed and appropriate in those terms, or not). Alai 04:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
On second thought, let me rephrase and perhaps save us some time and effort. The header originally included that Sarfati is a scientist. This was, I believe, well-sourced and documented originally (if not, like 'author' and 'editor', I'm sure I can find reputable sources for its inclusion) and as it is valid to introduce the article in the header with redundancies, it's not enough to say it is mentioned elsewhere. On what basis do you think it's inclusion violates wikipedia policy? IOW, it cannot be any editor's POV assertion that he is not a scientist (OR). While it is not up to the person who is removing text to make the case for inclusion (obviously), they must give a valid (non-OR) reason for the removal, especially if/when the inclusion is well-sourced in entirety. This is the opposite of the 'Scientist?' section, which does not meet those criteria of source and verifiability.agapetos_angel
Alai, regarding your point on connection. I was pointing out history, not necessarily saying that it was valid editing. I agree that the intro/header is summary, but it is also used as a point to draw interest to the rest of the article. I used a previous example of how Dawkins is refered to as 'outspoken' (which is more difficult, IMO, to pin down and verify than the sourced 'scientist') in the header of his article. Comments? agapetos_angel 04:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
To be brief: "scientist" is not adequately sourced, for the context in which it's being used; and it's not necessary that it be "disproved" that he's a scientist for it to be a poor idea to insert such a statement, or to remove that; that's not "OR", that's "judgement about a good edit". There's no burden of proof in favour of some article status quo, as you seem to be suggesting. Alai 04:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
So, if I understand you, you dispute the inclusion based not on the reputability of sources, but on the basis that the sources are incorrect in their assessment and usage (i.e, saying they are wrong)? I would submit that this is OR because that is passing judgment on the content of the sourced material, and creating a POV by that judgment. agapetos_angel 05:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm unclear what source, or set of sources, you think supports the qualified assertion that "Sarfati is a scientist", and is uncontroverted. While we're bandying policy abbrevs., I raise you "NPOV"; reporting one view over all others violates this. Nor have you argued against the merits of my preferred version, as I have against yours. And before you assert "OR", please identify for me the OR placed in the introduction of the article. And likewise, identify the POV in the intro. Alai 05:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

(reducing indent) I have reworded that entire header to a version that can be entirely sourced. Is this an acceptable compromise? agapetos_angel 05:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Alai, NPOV is to report the sourced material accurately (for example, as his employers would give him a job title). That it is or might be controverted is material for a subsection, not the header.agapetos_angel 05:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm completely fine with reporting what his job title is, just so long as it's clear that that's what's being done, rather than being an editorial judgement about what his job consists of. (So as regards the reworded version, a bit better, but not ideal. I also couldn't find a source on a quick google, so if you have it to hand, thanks. AiG seems to prefer "[Creationist] Physical Chemist and Spectroscopist", neither variant of which I have the least objection to.) Alai 05:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's been reverted again (and nothing in talk). Research scientist. Are author and editor sourced enough (I previously supplied sourced in header edit)? What would you change to make it more ideal? agapetos_angel 05:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, quelle surprise. Some people prefer to get their barbs in in edit summaries (methinks there's a policy about that, if I could be bothered to look it up). Anyway, I'm done reverting and rewording for the night, but I've not yet given up on discussion, if it's any comfort. I did find that page, but the indefinite article and lower case suggested "description" to me, rather than "job title". But mutatis mutandis, I'm happy enough with that, on the same basis (i.e. making it clear it's AiG's description/characterisation, not an editorial one). I'm completely fine with "author" and "editor", those are sourced indirectly anyway, right? Alai 05:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Yep, in the article. I believe NPOV is met by 'Sarfati works for Aig as ...'. agapetos_angel 05:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
But that doesn't make it clear it's their description, just that it's their paycheque. If you find a quote that identifies something that's more clearly a title per se, put that in, otherwise I'd be happier with an "is described as" type formulation, or something less clumsy to that effect. Alai 06:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

From Google search:

  • "In August 1996, he returned to the country of his birth to take up a position as a research scientist and editorial consultant ..." ref
  • "Research scientist, author and editorial consultant" ref
  • "Research scientist for Answers in Genesis, Australia" ref
  • implied ref
  • "... presently works as a research scientist ..." (The Evening Post (Wellington), February 5, 2001, as reported on ref
  • "Dr. Sarfati is a research scientist for Answers in Genesis in Australia" as reported in the Conservative Voice: ref
  • "Jonathan Sarfati ... currently works ... as ... and consultant scientist" as reported on Sydney Morning Herald webdiary ref
  • "Dr Sarfati is a research scientist for Answers in Genesis in Australia" ref

Good Better? agapetos_angel 06:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC) (I also included non-AiG refs to show NPOV)

BETTER? Are you kidding? Refs 1, 2 and 4 are directly from AiG; Ref's 3 and 8 are from Fundamentalist Christian apologetics sites, Ref 5 is from an unknown web denizen's blog (the newspaper mentioned went out of business over 3 years ago); ref 6 is from a neo-con webzine and ref 7 has a bio lifted directly from AiG. Would it be possible to pick cites that were more POV? If this is your idea of proper sourcing then this article is headed down a slipperly slope to utter gibberish that should mercifully be deleted. Also, a search of the archives of one of the world's premier nerwpapers, the New York Times, shows zero articles (including book reviews) on Sarfati. All the while, many other creationists, chemists and chess players have had articles written on them in the NYT.Jim62sch 10:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Jim, the sources requested were to confirm Sarfati's job title. Could you please explain why using AiG cites, Sarfati's employer, is not appropriate? To my viewing, anyone else would be lack authority in that respect (I only included the others sources for Alai to see that it doesn't appear to be a one-off in one article, but rather something that is more widely understood to be his job title). What does lack of NYT articles have to do with Sarfati's job title? Even if you are making another point, the NYT, an American newspaper, is hardly a valid resource for looking for articles about an Australian. agapetos_angel 11:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
If we go with a direct quote (which could take in all three titles in one swoop, which would be more tidy and neutral than just "scare-quoting" the "controversial" part), yes, good. Alai 06:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, just saw you replied. So, by direct quote, you mean as I edited it (research scientis, author, editor)? agapetos_angel 06:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't buy the argument that multiple sources=NPOV. Multiple quotes=multiple people that share a POV (or are just repeating AiG's description directly). This is a different argument entirely from that previously deployed. Alai 06:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
By NPOV, I meant that I did not push refs from the AiG site without balance with refs from other locations. You requested "that identifies something that's more clearly a title per se". I supplied you with quotes from Sarfati's employer, quotes from newspapers, quote from the moderator of a debate on Syd Morning Herald webdiary, etc. After supplying what you requested, you are, if I understand you correctly, saying that these quotes are invalid because they all share the same POV or quote AiG? All, with the possible exception of the implied one, indicated research scientist, and only one might be suspect for being secondary. What would satisfy your requirement for a source, then? agapetos_angel 07:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
No, because that doesn't make it clear it is a quote. I'd suggest 'is described by AiG as [any reasonable synposis or paraphrase of their various descriptions]', or 'is employed by AiG as a "[r]esearch scientist, author and editorial consultant"', or some such form of flag-up of "this is being reported, not asserted". Alai 07:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with changing 'works for' to the similar phrasing (???) of 'is employed by'. agapetos_angel 07:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC) NB, editorial consultant is on the older references; newer refereces state editor. 07:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I've made that compromised change but left editor instead of editorial consulatant for reasons stated above. Thanks for working this out agapetos_angel 07:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
But once again, this does not make clear this is AiG's description. "Works for" is completely fine, I wasn't suggesting a change there (just not referring directly to the current text), but I think either the quote marks, or the "described by" (or "what they call", or whatever) is key. Alai 08:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Chalk it up to being tired, but I don't really understand your last post here. Could you please clarify? agapetos_angel 09:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I was just reiterating my earlier point... Which must not have been at all clear, either. :) Put AiG's description of him in quotes, or say it's their description, otherwise it reads like Wikipedia's description of him. Alai 10:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Like I said, it's probably more me being tired than you being unclear. The header has (again) been reverted to an outdated version. I'm not going to edit it anymore today because someone will just scream 3RR violation. I don't see how we will ever reach a consensus if that sort of behaviour continues. Perhaps you can make the edit you are suggesting, and I can see it in practical application, rather than trying to guess what you are driving at? Ta agapetos_angel 10:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Nature

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Incidentally, after looking at the Nature reference, I noticed that Sarfati's paper was in the letters, not articles section. Possibly this should be noted (Nature has three levels of material generally, with letters being the middling level). JoshuaZ 05:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Probably, if "paper" is ambiguous or misleading in ref. to Nature. Alai 06:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Letters and articles are both scientific papers and there is little difference except in length. Articles might be considered slightly more cutting edge but in the context of this Sarfati article I do not think this distinction is warranted. A letter in nature should not be confused with a 'letter to the editor'. in nature 'letters to the editor' are called 'correspondance'.
If one really wanted to be critical you might mention he is a minor author on the paper and probably contributed a very small amount. I don't think we want to go down that hypercritical path. It will be obvious enough to anyone that sees the full reference. David D. (Talk) 15:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
My impression agrees mainly with yours. Letters are subject to the same peer-review as articles. However, when most people think of something being published in Nature, they associate with it a level of cutting-edgeness that is, imo, more likely to be found in articles. Also, we clearly can't call it a "letter" without explanation that that is a peer reviewed paper. So this should probably stand as is. (Note that the authors in the paper are clearly not alphabetical and Sarfati is listed second to last of the authors, so its a fair bet that Sarfati had little contribution, but as Dacyd observe, this will be obvious to anyone who tracks down the reference). The remark about his age when this occured seems irrelevant. I will take it out sometime tonight (US East Coast time) if no one objects before then. JoshuaZ 15:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Joshua, I agree with what you say above except for the comment "they associate with it a level of cutting-edgeness that is, imo, more likely to be found in articles". In my experience a letter in Nature is as cutting edge as an article and has almost the same prestige as an article. On the other hand correspondance has no prestige.
As a side note, there is a correspondance in Nature this week (Feb 2 2006) proposing that scientists should set up there own wikipedia style database so that every gene can be described with regard to structure and function. Basically pooling all data from primary literature and having it available in one article. David D. (Talk) 15:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

"Most scientists"

Latest comment: 18 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion
"Young Earth Creationism is considered a pseudoscience by almost all scientists, although almost all scientific research is conducted without reference to the age of the earth or evolution (e.g. electromagnetism, spectroscopy, superconductivity, NMR)."

Note that the first statement is unsourced and uses weasel words, which as Agapetos has shown, violates wiki policy. The second statement is likewise unsourced, but sauce for the goose and all. But here are some sources:

  1. A.S. Wilkins, BioEssays special issue on evolution in 2000, cited in Larry Witham, Where Darwin Meets the Bible, p. 43, Oxford University Press, 2002.
‘While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas”, the editor wrote. “Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superflous one.” The annual programs of science conventions also tell the story. When the zoologists met in 1995 (and changed their name to the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology), just a few dozen of the 400 academic papers read were on evolution. The North American Paleontological Convention of 1996 featured 430 papers, but only a few included the word “evolution” in their titles. The 1998 AAS meeting organised 150 scientific sessions, but just 5 focused on evolution—as it relates to biotechnology, the classification of species, language, race and primate families.’
  1. Philip Skell, Why Do We Invoke Darwin? The Scientist, 19(16):10, 29 August 2005, commenting on the above:
I would tend to agree. Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.
I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.
In the peer-reviewed literature, the word "evolution" often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for "evolution" some other word – "Buddhism," "Aztec cosmology," or even "creationism." I found that the substitution never touched the paper's core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.

And this is just in biology. Evolution is even more irrelevant to physics and chemistry. 220.245.180.133 06:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for giving a response. Among other issues, please note that your claim was about the age of the earth, not just evolution. Age of the earth is interwoven with many things (such as all of geology, almost all of astronomy, a large amount of nuclear physics and other issues). I will respond to your specific quote mines tommorow or the day after. I may need time to track the quotes down. JoshuaZ 06:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Common misconception, either made by the authors of these papers, or created by selective quotation. Without common descent there is no phylogeny. Without phylogeny there is no inference. If each species is created independently, then it's logically invalid to take an observation in one species and move it to another. DNA structure? Would have to be derived independently for each species. Enzyme function? Well, if it studied in the species you are studying, you can't draw any inference. Withou evolution biology is just stamp collecting. Guettarda 06:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Guetttarda, I've reverted your last revert, but retained your deletion of the disputed phrase. Your revert was too far back. Thank youagapetos_angel 06:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Left message on FM's talk page that he is reverting away from the version that is becoming consensus to an older version. agapetos_angel 06:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Consensus in whose mind? If you're referring to the intro, the version with YEC, author and scientist is lost in the muddle of the nonsensical attempts to claim that Sarfati is primarily a chermist (a field in which he doesn't even rank as as minor light) and chess master who plays blindfolded. If fewer POV edits aimed at whitewashing the truth and/or glorifying Sarfati were made, keeping up with the article might be appreciably easier (but, mayber that the point, eh?) Jim62sch 10:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I said 'becoming consensus. Reverting to older versions when other editors (namely myself and Alai) are working through to a suitable compromise is not helping achieve the goal of consensus. I'd invite you to participate in the discussion. That is far more productive than veiled inuendo, isn't it? agapetos_angel 10:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
You and Alai were having a discussion last night, which I participated in. The fact that he may have agreed with some of your changes does not make them consensus. I was not convinced, and I'd say that neither were FM or Jim. Please don't call it the "consensus" version unless and until there actually is consensus among many of us. Guettarda 13:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The Wilkins quote is a quote mine, the paragraph after it goes to explain how evolutionary biology is thriving. It's basically an editorial which is using a bait and counter. I have the paper somewhere. — Dunc|☺ 11:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Quick comment on this section: the "weasel words" simply aren't: "most" is a far stronger claim than "some". If you want to ask for sources and verification, that's another issue. The largely-true-but-irrelevant coda is a good idea, why? It in no ways goes to the point at issue. A belief in phrenology wouldn't inhibit one's ability to do "almost all scientific research", but it's still pseudoscience. A belief in creationism certainly inhibit's one's ability to do science in numerous areas, at least if one goes with the presuppositionalists: "For example, we object to using ‘science’ to deny a global Flood at the time of Noah, because the Bible clearly teaches this." That's pretty clear: if it's in a "plain reading" of the bible, it's not subject to the scientific method. Alai 11:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

US English?

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I hesitate to say that JS was a "Commonwealth Topic", but wouldn't AU/NZ spellings be more appropriate? Unless I'm missing something obvious in the history or otherwise... Alai 06:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. That was the thought behind my edit of October 1 (US English format) to 1 October (AU English format). agapetos_angel 06:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Must have got lost in the (many, many) switches. Perhaps it can stabilise for a while after I file a 3RR on 220. Alai 08:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you can add some others who keep disrupting our attempts to make a consensus. The constant reverts to an outdated version is getting annoying. agapetos_angel 10:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
It's rather vexing, I agree (several entirely neutral edits of mine seem to now be in neither version in the current revert round-robin). OTOH, I only count 220 as over 3, and he's well over that. Mind you, 3RR is current "asleep at post", anyway. (BTW, Jim, can we also keep comments in some semblance of thread order, as opposed to the "jump in anywhere" scheme?) Alai 11:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

POV pushing

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It's becoming increasing apparent that a particular editor here is not interested in following WP:NPOV and is pushing the usual creationist pov, inflating credentials and obscuring/removing criticisms, etc. For example, arguing and revert warring to insert a factually inaccurate intro implying that Sarfati's notability is as a chemist and chess master, two things for which Sarfati is completely unnotable. Google proves that Sarfati is known for being a creationist, nothing else. [24]

Conducting a pov campaign disrespects the project's aims and wastes the time of good faith contributors; it is disruptive and is highly frowned upon by the community. The relevant party needs to step back and consider their actions and goals at this article in light of WP:NPOV and adjust their behavior accordingly. FeloniousMonk 17:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

My edit

Latest comment: 18 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

I've done some editing of the page, bearing in mind the discussion on the dispute subpage. First, someone has already reverted adding his latest book to the intro. It's quite common to do this e.g. see Nick Cohen. If we could find a proposed publication date, or at least be sure it was 2006, that would be better.

I've deleted entirely the contentious section about whether he's a scientist or has the right credentials, until something suitable is found. Dave has made some suggestions on the subpage.

Apart from that, it was mostly tidying, fixing links according to WP:CITE, and moving the most important material to the intro. I'm going to tidy the references section, perhaps get rid of a few of the embedded links if they're repetitive, and I'd also like to expand on his beliefs just a little (a couple of sentences would be enough), because his work in young-earth creationism is the thing that has made him notable, but we don't say anything about it.

If anyone disagrees with the edits, please let me know. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Slim, the fact that he labels himself as a scientist was a big part of the initial problem (which, I suppose is a good reason to remove the references to being a young-earth scierntist), but in removing those references he just looks like some Aussie writer who plays chess on the side. And actually, there's still more on chess than on science in the article (but, you already noted that).
Also, as you noted, his YEC views, which is what he is known for rather than his moral views, are nowhere to be found. AiG has countless Sarfati papers, done in a faux-debate style, that clearly articulate his positions; I'm sure something could be gathered from there. I don't have the time to cobble that together, but I'm sure someone does.
As of right now, with the exception of the odd morality section (I'm still missing the importance of that somewhat disjointed section) the article reads almost like a publicity bio, although it is a bit crisper than the original version.
That's my two (maybe three) cents. Jim62sch 09:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
The page doesn't have to stay like this, and I agree that a section expounding his views and criticism would be a good idea, but the criticism must be carefully attributed, and can't simply be the opinion of Wikipedia editors. The only reason I removed the criticism that was there is that it was original research, as was discussed. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed and understood. I just hope this article becomes a bit more balanced. At the very least though, it's much better sourced, and that's quite an achievement in itself. Jim62sch 21:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I've added a version [25] of the criticism section written by Dave souza, and trimmed it according to the subpage discussion about sources. Douglas Theobald looks like a good source based on those links you found, Jim, so I included a reference from him (it was co-authored but I don't know who the other writer is) noting that Sarfati has degrees in physical chemistry, not biology. If we find other good sources making the same point, we could add them too. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Since Sarfati is not the CEO of AiG, he may sometimes not get a choice of what he writes about. Also, evolutionists like Dawkins, Gould and Sagan wrote outside their specialist fields as well.58.162.251.204 22:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
JoshuaZ's revert was just another of the knee-jerk reversions that cause so much trouble. Check first before being so heavy-handed. Sarfati's article on the slowing of light is explicit that it is has nothing to do with creationist cosmology, so the current statement was misleading. And it is a fact that he has written a lot of articles on chemical evolution.220.245.180.133 01:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Precisely what part of the revert are you objecting to? What would you prefer it say in that regard? JoshuaZ 01:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
The following
Discussing astronomy, for example, he writes that the remains of supernovae [1], distribution of comets, [2] and dilation of the speed of light [3] can provide explanations consistent with the universe having been created 6,000 years ago.
Yet in the last article, Sarfati says, "this has nothing to do with creationist cosmology". So the way it is written misrepresents him.
Further, why delete the fact that he has written a number of articles criticisn chemical evolution? There is simply no justification for this revert-happy behaviour.220.245.180.133 05:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
It's looking pretty good, so far. I added cites for Hurd, Moore and Cartwright -- they all look credible, but you go through the cites and see what you think. Jim62sch 22:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Name change

Latest comment: 18 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion

Has AIG changed its name as the first sentence now says? Its website doesn't say anything about a name change. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The short answer is yes. Grace Note 07:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 07:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Here's a better link. It looks like all the former international AiG offices split and formed their own organization. Obviously there are some big changes going on in AiG. I don't think this article is a place to speculate as to what is happening. We should wait until we get the facts before we start making claims that AiG has changed their name. DennisF 15:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Certainly we should not speculate on the reasons for the name change so soon. But how can it be a problem for the article to make the factual statement that Sarfati works for an organization now named Creation Ministries International? 220.245.180.133 08:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Do you have a source showing that he works for this new organization? SlimVirgin (talk) 10:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the two links above together seem to confirm it. I'll revert myself. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

This could still still stand to be clearer, I think. "Creation Ministries International (CMI), formerly Answers in Genesis (AiG)". Does that mean he worked for "AiG (Australia)", which is now "CMI (ditto)"; or did he work for the "AiG International", and now works for a portion thereof, now called CMI? Or some combination of the two...? The history section of the AiG article now has specifics on this, but a) is contradicted by its own lead paragraphs (which I imagine are simply "lagging behind"), and b) doesn't specifically address JS, so doesn't make this entirely clear as it affects this article. Alai 00:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm still attempting to understand how organizationally things have changed. It looks like AiG and CMI are being their usual transparent selves in explaining what exactly is going on and who is now where. JoshuaZ 00:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Would "formerly part of AiG" be a reasonable stab at our current understanding of these happenings? Alai 01:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Also, is there some form of "this is a current event" template? I have some vague memory of such a template. Presumably that or some similar comment might make sense to stick on. JoshuaZ 01:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Good point. I think you may be thinking of {{current}}; there's a small menagerie of them at Wikipedia:Current and future event templates. Alai 02:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
220.* do you have any data that might help us understand what is going on? JoshuaZ 01:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Anon's changes

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

203.213.77.138 (talk · contribs) keeps deleting the "widely believed" connection between Sarfati and "Socrates" - the assertion is sourced, and this is not the only source making that connection. Since the text does not say that they are one and the same, but simply reports something that is widely reported, including it seems appropriate. Removing the material, on the other hand, seems unjustified. The other change he is making is changing CMI from "formerly part of AIG" to "formerly AiG-Australia". This is assertion contradicts what CMI's website says, which says that CMI consists of the former Australian, Canadian, New Zealander and South African branches of AiG. Guettarda 07:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

He seems to have reverted three times now, if he does it again he will be over 3rr. JoshuaZ 13:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I checked the sources a while back and only one seemed good. I think the sentence should be rewritten to more exactly reflect the source, but I won't bother if it is a hornet's nest. Any objections? WAS 4.250 18:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Probably not. What is your proposed rewrite? JoshuaZ 19:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Which sentance are you talking about - the CMI one or the Socrates one? I have no problem with any edits which improve readability or accuracy - hopefully both ;) - Guettarda 20:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  1. ^ Sarfati, J. (1997) Exploding stars point to a young universe: Where are all the supernova remnants? Creation 19(3):46–48
  2. ^ Sarfati, J. (2003) Comets—portents of doom or indicators of youth? Creation 25(3):36–40
  3. ^ Sarfati, J. (2001) What about the slowing and stopping of light? AiG article
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jonathan_Sarfati/Archive_3&oldid=1146346534"