Talk:Jonathan Sarfati/Archive 4

message: I propose changing It is widely believed that Sarfati posts at TheologyWeb [2] and other online fora using the screen name "Socrates." [3] to In 2003, Dave Moore in an article titled "Reply to Jonathan Sarfati" at Origins.com said "Dr. Sarfati posts at TheologyWeb under the screen name "Socrates" with the habit of referring to himself in the third person". .  This provides who said what where when. WAS 4.250 21:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To what end? There's more than just Dave Moore that believes this. The current phrase is accurate as it stands. FeloniousMonk 22:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The Wikipedia style and citation rules allow phrasing like the current phrasing when there are many people who have a given opinion. That seems to apply in this case. JoshuaZ 22:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the evidence? The second reference takes me to a page with nothing relevant on it. WAS 4.250 22:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 501 FeloniousMonk 01:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: O.K. That works for me. How about: Since at least 2003, Jonathan Sarfati has been identified with the name "Socrates" in some forums.   . WAS 4.250 03:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  While true, it is problematic, talkorigins.org is a reputable website, not a forum (although it shares the name with the internet group talk.origins).  JoshuaZ 03:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please suggest an alternative way of expressing this. I'm so stupid I didn't know that the term "forum" indicated something that was not a "reputable website". WAS 4.250 03:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Um, is posting to a forum (whether under his own name or a pseudonym) at all relevant to an encyclopedia article? I mean, I'm an active member of Theologyweb, and I've tangled with Socrates there, but compared to his other work and activity I would classify forum-posting as a tempest in a teapot. Justin Eiler 19:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: proposed change

message: wow, it seems to that basically all of what this discussion was about has been completely removed?? Howcome, why not put back in that he is/was a scientist (along with the views against it seeing that some people wish to push that)?? Can somebody who is more aware of what happened save me the trouble of searching back and point out exactly how/why/when this section went away?? Thanks. Mathmo 18:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content dispute over 'Scientist?' section 

message: User:203.213.77.138 is one of the enjoined parties precluded from editing this article and any other Sarfati-related article the arbcomm's final decision in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Agapetos_angel: "This list is not exclusive and the remedy applies to any user, registered or not, who engages in the same type of tendentious editing as has been done by Agapetos angel." Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Agapetos_angel/Proposed_decision#Agapetos_angel_et_al._banned
Additionally, User:203.213.77.138 was identified here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Agapetos_angel/Workshop#Sockpuppetry_.26_Meatpuppetry
: User:203.213.77.138 has now been warned of the ruling on his talk page. Please report any instances of him continuing to edit Sarfati-related articles here: WP:AE. FeloniousMonk 05:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FeloniousMonk is one who has been explicitly "reminded of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. They are instructed to seek dispute resolution rather than edit warring when involved with content disputes. The banning of Agapetos angel and her meat and sock puppets should not be interpreted as a license to make a hatchet job of the affected articles."  Please report any violations of NPOV in any Sarfati-related articles here: WP:AE. 58.162.2.122 15:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As one who has been warned for his bad behaviour, FM has shown himself not to be fit to administrate on this article.  In fact, he should have been punished by having his admin powers removed for at least as long as this ban on AA lasts.60.242.13.87 01:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing by enjoined users 

message: I remember for listening to the Jonathan Wells talk page that there was a discussion that he is not a biologist. I think the same arguments employed on that talk page can be used to omit Sarfati from the category of "Physical chemist". Much like Jonathan Wells, he has a legitimate degree, but he doesn't significantly contribute to the field of physical chemistry. Surely he has some peer-reviewed publications that he has co-authored, but the same can be said about Jonathan Corrigan Wells, too. They both published in top-tier journals, with Wells publishing in [i]PNAS[/i] and Sarfati in [i]Nature[/i]. 
Sarfati is not a practicing physical chemist, although he conducted original research in the past. He should not be considered as a practicing scientist, but he was a scientist in the past.
For fairness, we should remove him from this category, or we should add Jonathan Wells to the category of "Molecular biologist" too. I would not protest if this happens to Jonathan Wells, even though I deem him as a pseudoscientist.  
LinkinPark 19:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physical chemist 

message: These sections, that seem to serve as nothing but an outlet for his views and a huge heap of non-notable chess stuff, I have moved here. We shouldn't be uncritically promulgating his views, as that's strongly POV, given the controversy, but there might be some usable content in these, so... I think without these, we're left with an article that stil needs work, but that can be brought into NPOV, but these sections need so much more work that there's little hope of fixing the article to a reasonable timescale with them in. Adam Cuerden talk 07:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I am waiting for even a smidgen of criticism for the articles on the heroes of teh atheistic faith such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. 60.242.13.87 01:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Not that Adam would know real science if he tripped over it.60.242.13.87 01:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Behave yourself 60.242.13.87: Wikipedia:No personal attacks Josh Parris 02:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: FWIW, I think this paragraph is very helpful in pointing out his extreme views.  I'd put it back in.  -- Ssilvers 07:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: "Homosexuals are now a politically protected victim group, about which it is verboten to say anything negative. And certain homonazis want Christians punished if they quote from the Bible against homosexual behavior. Indeed, 63-year-old Pastor Åke Greenh was jailed in Sweden for just that, because they have such a sodomofascist law restricting Christian freedom. Fortunately his conviction was overturned on appeal, to the ire of homosexual activists, by a higher court because it was such an egregious violation of Sweden's free speech laws."  Creation on the web series Feedback from  February 18 2005 titled "The disingenuous and anti-Christian nature of 'gay rights' rhetoric" by Jonathan Sarfati. 
This section might be alright, but seems overly long Adam Cuerden talk 02:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV Sections

message: Sarfati says: "Right throughout Scripture, murder — that is the intentional killing of innocent humans — is regarded as a heinous sin (Exodus 20:13, , Romans 13:9). Since abortion kills an innocent human being, it is nothing less than murder. So all the usual 'hard cases' pushed by pro-abortionists, e.g. 'What if the woman was raped?', 'What if the child is deformed?', 'What if she can't afford to keep the child?' are completely irrelevant. We should also remember Ezekiel 18:20, which prohibits executing a child for the crime of his/her father — this means that even the tragic cases of pregnancies due to incest or rape are no justification for killing the innocent child conceived."   Creation on the web article "Abortion — The answer’s in Genesis" by Jonathan Sarfati First published in Prayer News (Australia), May 1998, page four.
He has argued that "the Bible speaks against racism regardless of any way in which people have misused it."  Creation on the web series Feedback from its 2001 article titled "The Bible vs slavery and apartheid" by Jonathan Sarfati.
He defends marriage as an institution joining one man and one woman, and opposes polygamy.  Creation on the web article "Does the Bible clearly teach monogamy?" by Jonathan Sarfati.
He opposes homosexual behaviour, while advocating "love the sinner, hate the sin."  Creation on the web series Feedback from February 6 2004 titled "Objections to homosexuality article" by Jonathan Sarfati.
He has endorsed Bernard Goldberg's suggestion that Roman Catholic priests who molest teenage boys should be called "gay priests" rather than "pedophile priests." In the same article, he used the terms "homonazis" and "sodomofascist" to refer to gays who advocate the imprisonment of pastors for calling homosexual acts sinful:
:"Homosexuals are now a politically protected victim group, about which it is verboten to say anything negative. And certain homonazis want Christians punished if they quote from the Bible against homosexual behavior. Indeed, 63-year-old Pastor Åke Greenh was jailed in Sweden for just that, because they have such a sodomofascist law restricting Christian freedom. Fortunately his conviction was overturned on appeal, to the ire of homosexual activists, by a higher court because it was such an egregious violation of Sweden's free speech laws."  Creation on the web series Feedback from  February 18 2005 titled "The disingenuous and anti-Christian nature of 'gay rights' rhetoric" by Jonathan Sarfati. 
This section might be alright, but seems overly long Adam Cuerden talk 02:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Religion and morals

message: [[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg -->|right|thumb|300px|Sarfati playing blindfold chess at 12 boards simultaneously]] A New Zealand national chess 
champion in 1987-8, he represented New Zealand in three Chess Olympiads: the 27th in Dubai Chess Olympiad 1986 in 1986, the 28th in Thessaloniki  Chess Olympiad 1988 in 1988, and the 30th in Manila   Chess Olympiad 1992 in 1992. He also represented New Zealand at the 5th Asian Teams in New Delhi  Asian Teams 1983 . He also tied Rey Casse in the Australian Junior Championship in 1981, but was not eligible to share the title because he was a resident of New Zealand at the time. Search for Rey Casse and Chess
He is currently the club captain/director-of-play for the Logan City Chess Club, Australia. Logan City Chess Club
He is known for giving blindfold chess exhibits at creationist conferences  Creation Ministries International Camp brochure and chess clubs, Croydon chess club photos and has played twelve such games simultaneously. Chess games at Logan Chess Club site
His previous best was winning 11/11 at the Kapiti Chess Club in New Zealand (Roberts 2003).
This section probably has some useful content, but much of it is non-notable, and having all of this is seriously undermining the NPOV of the links section. Adam Cuerden talk 02:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably a lot of people had previously agreed to these, which after all explain what the subject stands for. 219.88.95.90 04:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chess

message: "Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. ... It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position; It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;"  Wikipedia:No original research. 
The following qualifies, and also breaks "the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately"
 
:He also accuses many origin of life researchers, such as David Bartel of MIT and Gerald Joyce of the Scripps Research Institute, of having a religious kind of faith,[Sarfati article] although those scientists do not demonstrate any manifestation of religious faith. He also misrepresents the work of ribozyme evolution. For example, he argued that the mutagenesis of those experiments employed high error rates, which would cause error catastrophe, but high mutation rates were needed in those experiments simply to reduce the amount of time it would take to satisfactorially mutate a population of ribozymes to a significant extent, as opposed to using normal PCR techniques.[ibid]
It is especially disgraceful that two admins, FeloniusMonk and JoshuaZ are parties to this rule violation, due to their extreme ideological bias against the subject of the article.58.162.2.122 15:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of making attacks on FM and me you could have discussed and pointed out your concern on the talk page earlier. I've removed the offending section until it can be better sourced due to the BLP concerns. I am happy to see that you are now using the talk page rather than editing the article. Thank you for complying with the arbitration ruling. JoshuaZ 17:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research