Talk:Jonathan Sarfati/Archive 3

message: 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)
replies: text: 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" . Sarfati's abilities, including a draw against Boris Spassky , 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:   I said it was a draw agapetos_angel 06:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  (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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Which isn't what I was commenting on here.  Can we keep sections on-topic?  Alai 07:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  Can we reach a consensus on this dispute? agapetos_angel 03:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is FIDE Master really that high? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Casse birthplace - parenthetical comment 

message: * Critics and supporters of Sarfati often disagree whether he should be considered a scientist.
**What part of this statement do you dispute
***That his supporters claim he should a scientist, 
***That his critics claim that he should not be considered a scientist, or
***That this disagreement actually exists? Guettarda 19:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Critic and supporter are weasel words?  Ohhhkkaaayyy.  Jim62sch 23:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So what's your point?  Weasel words are neither inherently verifiable nor unverifiable.  Guettarda 01:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
thread_title: Sentence 1

message: *Another issue is whether one can be a scientist in some domains of work even if one advocates an ostensibly non-scientific position in others.
**What issue do you take with this sentance?  Guettarda 19:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  (<---- 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)
replies: text:  (<- 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)
thread_title: Sentence 4

message: * 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 , 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Sentence 5

message: *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.
**What problem do you have with this statement? Guettarda 19:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Sentence 6

message: *Sarfati received his PhD in physical chemistry.
**Do you dispute this statement?  If so, why are you deleting mention of it here and not elsewhere in the article?  Guettarda 19:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  This is redundant.  Redundancy should be deleted, immediately or nearly immediately, to avoid cluttered articles. agapetos_angel 21:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Sentence 7

message: * Thus, some critics find it reasonable to question his knowledge in apparently unrelated fields- namely the creationist perspective in biology and astronomy.
**Do you believe this statement to be false?  Guettarda 19:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  So if I understand you, in order to use "some " we must link to at least  n sources for some  n > 1? At this risk of being impolite, that's ridiculous. What value of    n  is acceptable?  n = 2 ?  n = 6 ? JoshuaZ 21:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It may be ridiculous to you, but it is wikipedia policy regarding weasel words (like 'some'). agapetos_angel 21:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So under your interpretation of the wikipedia guidelines, what number is the minimum acceptable number? JoshuaZ 21:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please review the policy  here.  It suggests ways to revise weasel statements to acceptable (by policy) standards agapetos_angel 21:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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  n   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)
replies: text:  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  n   ;)  agapetos_angel 05:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: (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)
thread_title: Sentence 8

message: * Sarfati himself has raised this point regarding writers in skeptic journals, eg he called one such writer "An anthropologist, so anything he says about radiometric dating should be taken with a large grain of salt." 
**Do you believe this statement to be false?  Guettarda 19:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Mandatory policy?  Here's one WP:DENSE.  Jim62sch 00:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would you like to please contribute sources and revisions, rather than personal attacks via weblink? agapetos_angel 01:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sentence 9

message: * 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. "
**On what grounds do you disagree with this quote?  Guettarda 19:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

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

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: See above sections.  Jim62sch 01:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Sentence 10+

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Jim62sch, you said (in comments) at 23:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

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

text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Bullying?  Are you kidding?  Anyway, repetition of pro forma objections does nothing to clarify your points.  Jim62sch 23:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Personal Attacks

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Possible Reference? 

message: 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.
:"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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Yes, the latter.  Sorry for the lack of clarity. agapetos_angel 10:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bioscience article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Mediation requested 

message: 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.".  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: No, you are wrong.  What there could be libel?  Guettarda 13:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  (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)

text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text:   -- 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Verifiability 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Recapping this issue for clarity 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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 and 220.245.180.134  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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 ) 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  Tpgi is Australia-wide ; the IP comes from NSW (not Brisbane, for those not familiar with Australian geography).  agapetos_angel 05:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: (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)
thread_title:  Participation of affiliated parties 

message: :"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:
#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.’
#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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
thread_title: "Most scientists"

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  US English? 

message: 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.  
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)
thread_title: POV pushing

message: 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)
replies: text: The short answer is yes. Grace Note 07:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 07:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Do you have a source showing that he works for this new organization? SlimVirgin (talk) 10:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the two links above together seem to confirm it. I'll revert myself. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: Would "formerly part of AiG" be a reasonable stab at our current understanding of these happenings?  Alai 01:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Good point.  I think you may be thinking of ;  there's a small menagerie of them at Wikipedia:Current and future event templates.  Alai 02:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  220.* do you have any data that might help us understand what is going on? JoshuaZ 01:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name change

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Probably not. What is your proposed rewrite? JoshuaZ 19:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Anon's changes