Talk:Jonathan Sarfati: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Article Images

Line 1:

{{~~WPBiography~~WikiProject banner shell|~~living~~blp=yes |class=Start|listas=Sarfati, Jonathan|1=▼

~~{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blp=yes|1=~~

▲{{WPBiography |living=yes |class=Start|listas=Sarfati, Jonathan

{{WikiProject ~~Skepticism |class=start~~ Chess|importance=~~low |attention=~~ Low}}▼

}}

{{WikiProject ~~Australia~~Christianity|~~class~~importance=~~Start~~Low|messianic-judaism=yes|messianic-judaism-importance=~~Low~~Mid}}

{{WikiProject ~~Christianity|class=Start~~Creationism|importance=~~Low~~Mid|~~messianic-judaism~~Young Earth creationism=yes|~~messianic-judaism~~Young Earth creationism-importance=~~Mid~~High}}

{{WikiProject ~~Creationism|class= Start~~Skepticism |importance=~~Mid~~low |~~Young Earth creationism~~attention=~~yes|Young~~ ~~Earth creationism-importance=High~~}}

▲{{WikiProject Skepticism |class=start |importance=low |attention= }}

}}

Line 100 ⟶ 99:

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

:Beware the anon. [[User:Jim62sch|<~~font~~span ~~face~~style="font-family:Times New Roman"; color=":#FF2400;">Jim</~~font~~span><~~font~~span ~~face~~style="font-family:Times New Roman"; color=":#F4C430;">62</~~font~~span><~~font~~span ~~face~~style="font-family:Times New Roman"; color=":#000000;">sch</~~font~~span>]] 21:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

::Except in this case the anon is correct. [[User:David D.|David D.]] [[User talk:David D.|(Talk)]] 00:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Line 107 ⟶ 106:

==In the creationism section==

Does self-reproduction = agamogenesis? It (self-reproduction) was a red-link (I unlinked it). [[User:Jim62sch|<~~font~~span ~~face~~style="font-family:Times New Roman"; color=":#FF2400;">Jim</~~font~~span><~~font~~span ~~face~~style="font-family:Times New Roman"; color=":#F4C430;">62</~~font~~span><~~font~~span ~~face~~style="font-family:Times New Roman"; color=":#000000;">sch</~~font~~span>]][[User talk:Jim62sch|dissera!]] 20:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

That's what I thought, but "reproduction" kind of threw me. It reads much better now, thanks. (BTW, I added a link to [[Self-replication]]) [[User:Jim62sch|<~~font~~span ~~face~~style="font-family:Times New Roman"; color=":#FF2400;">Jim</~~font~~span><~~font~~span ~~face~~style="font-family:Times New Roman"; color=":#F4C430;">62</~~font~~span><~~font~~span ~~face~~style="font-family:Times New Roman"; color=":#000000;">sch</~~font~~span>]][[User talk:Jim62sch|dissera!]] 21:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

:That's a good link, I've never seen that article before now. [[User:David D.|David D.]] [[User talk:David D.|(Talk)]] 21:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

::Davescot banned him from uncommondescent! [[User:Midnight Gardener|Midnight Gardener]] ([[User talk:Midnight Gardener|talk]]) 16:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Line 129 ⟶ 128:

== Lack of significant third party sourcing ==

''Way'' too much of this article is sourced to the CMI website. <~~font~~span ~~face~~style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">''[[User:Hrafn|Hrafn]][[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]][[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]]''''('''[[M:Precisionism|P]]''')</~~font~~span> 04:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

*Added cites to chess [[Special:Contributions/76.20.213.207|76.20.213.207]] ([[User talk:76.20.213.207|talk]]) 20:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

**One of which is not third-party, the other of which makes no mention of his doing so at creation(ist) conferences. I have therefore removed the claim that he is "known" for this, lacking a third-party source. <~~font~~span ~~face~~style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">''[[User:Hrafn|Hrafn]][[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]][[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]]''''('''[[M:Precisionism|P]]''')</~~font~~span> 04:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

***I've replaced the sources and the text that went with them. Two sources mention him by name and state he plays blindfold chess, a September 2011 Tulsa newspaper article, and a website for an August 2011 Canadian conference, which advertised it as one of several special events for attendees. Both sources are recent and relevant, and should be considered valid, IMO. [[Special:Contributions/76.20.213.207|76.20.213.207]] ([[User talk:76.20.213.207|talk]]) 06:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

****And I've tagged them -- neither creation.com nor creation2011.com are third party, and the September 2011 Tulsa newspaper article ''did not'' state that he gives "blindfold chess exhibitions '''at creation conferences'''" -- only that he has given blindfold chess exhibitions at some unspecified location. <~~font~~span ~~face~~style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">''[[User:Hrafn|Hrafn]][[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]][[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]]''''('''[[M:Precisionism|P]]''')</~~font~~span> 06:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

*****Edit conflict: Other sources, from an observers at a 2005 conference: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/07/report-on-the-2-1.html, http://www.jared-lee.com/Photos/Summer05/AiG%20MEGA%20Conference/index.html http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpb.aspx?pageid=8589951934 [[Special:Contributions/76.20.213.207|76.20.213.207]] ([[User talk:76.20.213.207|talk]]) 06:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC) ETA: That's cool. I've already spent enough time on this. [[Special:Contributions/76.20.213.207|76.20.213.207]] ([[User talk:76.20.213.207|talk]]) 06:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

******None of these sources meet the standard required for a [[WP:BLP]], and only one of them mentions him playing blind chess at a creationist conference. <~~font~~span ~~face~~style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">''[[User:Hrafn|Hrafn]][[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]][[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]]''''('''[[M:Precisionism|P]]''')</~~font~~span> 07:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

*******Which is why they are here, rather than in the article ;) [[Special:Contributions/76.20.213.207|76.20.213.207]] ([[User talk:76.20.213.207|talk]]) 07:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Line 164 ⟶ 163:

:::::::Creation science is clearly identified as an example of pseudoscience in [[WP:FRINGE]], because Wikipedia is a fact-based encyclopedia and the facts don't support it. This talk page is absolutely not the place to try and argue about that. --[[User:Tronvillain|tronvillain]] ([[User talk:Tronvillain|talk]]) 13:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

::::::::Arguing about creation science is not the point. The point is this article is not neutral or objective as a result of the pointless inclusion of a smear against one of Dr. Sarfati's works by someone who by all indications probably didn't even read it. This article is not about creation science, but rather is a bio page for a scientist, author and chess player. You have not given any reason why that non-sequitur belongs there, nor has anyone else. It's just a nice little jab against him because he holds an unpopular view that the editors here would like to ridicule.--[[User:Kanbei85|Kanbei85]] ([[User talk:Kanbei85|talk]]) 13:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

:::::::::Ad hominem arguments indicate that you aren't dealing with science anyway. Same with credentialist types of arguments. I'd object to calling it 'creation science'. It isn't science plain and simple. Same does however apply to Evolution. Both are philosophical points of views. And both are originally from theological debates. Still the background of authors has to be looked into. As far as Sarfati is concerned his ethnic background as well as his religious point of view shouldn't be ignored. It's clear that he had a Jewish background, but is he (still) a Judaist or not? Or is he a Christian? More specifics needed. [[Special:Contributions/105.4.3.134|105.4.3.134]] ([[User talk:105.4.3.134|talk]]) 19:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

== Book sources ==

Line 237:

::::::Now we're really reaching for any excuse to criticize, aren't we? Actually, that 'analysis' may be mine, but I am not inserting that into the actual content of the article, now am I? it is also uncontroversial to anyone knowing anything about Sarfati's work.--[[User:Kanbei85|Kanbei85]] ([[User talk:Kanbei85|talk]]) 21:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

== Request for Comment-- NPOV Dispute; Clear consensus? ==

{{Archive top|result=SnowClose per request and there being no supporters of the position of a now-banned editor ''Non-admin close'' [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 18:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC) }}

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

:The entire section above is your explanation. If you don't ~~like~~think the local consensus is enough, a more appropriate action would be to start an [[WP:RFC|RFC]]. [[User:Clpo13|clpo13]]([[User_talk:Clpo13|talk]]) 21:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

:::I will be happy to do so. Until it is resolved, though, the POV tag should be left in place. By quoting Scott's disparaging remark about Sarfati's book, this bio page has been turned into a forum for debating creationism. That is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia as well as the point of a bio page. Can you give any reason why it should be there?--[[User:Kanbei85|Kanbei85]] ([[User talk:Kanbei85|talk]]) 21:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

::::Safarti has made it his job to debate evolution, so it's only natural that he'd receive pushback from organizations and people who represent the scientific consensus. It would be less neutral to omit any criticism of his views. [[User:Clpo13|clpo13]]([[User_talk:Clpo13|talk]]) 22:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

::::::Criticism of creationism is more than well-represented already in the various pages here on Wikipedia. It does not belong on Sarfati's bio page, since the page is about Sarfati, not about creationism. Of course it's natural Sarfati would receive pushback. That is irrelevant to his bio.--[[User:Kanbei85|Kanbei85]] ([[User talk:Kanbei85|talk]]) 23:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

:::::::Describing "pushback" is a natural thing to do in a biography. We do it for [[Albert Einstein#Quantum mechanics|Einstein]]; we do it for [[Charles Darwin#Responses to publication|Darwin]]. It's part of the job of portraying a life. [[User:XOR'easter|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter|talk]]) 00:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

*'''No to NPOV tag, yes to Scott''' — the article is written neutrally. Including the scientific community's response to his writing is an appropriate course of action. It is the very opposite of a non sequitur: literally, ''it follows.'' It does not turn the biography into "a forum for debating creationism" any more than mentioning Sarfati's dispute with Ross makes the biography a "forum" for debating between the different varieties of creationism. [[User:XOR'easter|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter|talk]]) 22:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

:::Incorrect. Sarfati's debate with Ross is rightly mentioned because it is the subject of one of Sarfati's works. I don't see what that has to do with Scott's comment.--[[User:Kanbei85|Kanbei85]] ([[User talk:Kanbei85|talk]]) 22:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

::::If one would turn the article into a "forum for debating", so would the other. Neither of them do, and both of them are appropriate. [[User:XOR'easter|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter|talk]]) 23:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

::::::Your comparison with a brief mention of Hugh Ross in connection with one of Sarfati's books is inappropriate. While the entire book Refuting Compromise is dedicated to refuting Ross, no quote from Ross is contained, nor is one needed. It is not a standard practice to always include a rebuttal quote from someone who is being criticized by any work listed in a bio page! Yet, Eugenie Scott is mentioned only in passing in Refuting Evolution 2, and is not the actual subject of the work. Why is it necessary to quote her making a defamatory remark about the book? The answer is that it is completely unnecessary. If anything is needed at all, it could be reduced to a simple statement of "members of the mainstream scientific community have rejected Sarfati's work", and link to Scott's article if desired. It's called being objective and professional.--[[User:Kanbei85|Kanbei85]] ([[User talk:Kanbei85|talk]]) 00:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

:::::::You have inadvertently made a good case for including Ross's reply to Sarfati. In addition, while you claim to be "objective and professional", you insist on labeling Scott and Branch's summary of Sarfati's book as "defamatory", which is only your subjective evaluation of it. Professionals quote, accurately and representatively. [[User:XOR'easter|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter|talk]]) 00:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

:::::::::There are ways of being non-objective simply with one's selection of what to quote and what to omit. This is a clear case of that. The quote is certainly defamatory, and non-scientific in nature. Calling Sarfati's work propaganda is not a scientific statement, but an inflammatory statement of opinion on Scott's part.--[[User:Kanbei85|Kanbei85]] ([[User talk:Kanbei85|talk]]) 01:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

::::::::::I left a message for you on your talk page. Please carefully consider which path you choose to take. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 05:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

*'''No to NPOV tag, yes to Scott''' — as discussed [[Talk:Jonathan Sarfati#Motion To Strike|above]], and the [[Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Jonathan_Sarfati|BLP noticeboard]]. --[[User:Tronvillain|tronvillain]] ([[User talk:Tronvillain|talk]]) 23:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

::This is supposed to be a discussion, not just a voting popularity contest. Your comment above adds nothing to it.--[[User:Kanbei85|Kanbei85]] ([[User talk:Kanbei85|talk]]) 23:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

:::On the contrary, it does add: the discussion at the [[Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Jonathan_Sarfati|BLP noticeboard]] is relevant, and it had not been linked here before. I am grateful to tronvillain for posting that link, as I had been unaware of it. Besides, noting one's agreement with prior !votes is standard practice in Wikipedia discussions, not an example of a "popularity contest". [[User:XOR'easter|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter|talk]]) 23:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

*'''No to NPOV tag, yes to Scott''' and retain (and perhaps expand) mention that Jonathan Sarfati opposes Hugh Ross. It may be boring to most of us but ''to the creationists'' the question of whether creationist Sarfati or creationist Ross are closer to being right is important. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 01:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

*'''No to NPOV tag, yes to Scott''' and noting we have an editor who as he clearly couldn't get editors to agree here, he went, at my suggestin, to BLPN. He didn't get any further there so now he's asked for an RfC. [[User:Doug Weller|Doug Weller]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 11:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

*'''No to NPOV tag, yes to Scott''' Starting an RfC over a tag and stating the obvious is a new low. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 23:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

*'''Move to SNOW close''' Consensus is clear, editor has been blocked indefinitely, essentially for wasting the community's time. [[User:MaxBrowne2|MaxBrowne2]] ([[User talk:MaxBrowne2|talk]]) 03:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

** '''I second the move to Snow Close'''. There is zero chance that Wikipedia will ever treat pseudoscientists who believe that everything was created in 7 literal days 10,000 years ago the same way we treat the actual scientists -- astronomers, physicists, geologists, paleontologists, etc. -- who have solid evidence that the earth is much, much older. This sort of thing just makes those creationists -- [[Flying Spaghetti Monster|FSM]] bless them -- who calmly advocate for their position ''without'' being total asshats about it look bad. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 04:07, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

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