Talk:Jonathan Sarfati

message: Hi,
I have removed 2 of the links on "opposing views." The first one (the AIC link) leads to "page not found." I'm guessing that it has been moved; maybe someone or myself can update this later. The other page (a science organision) does not mention Sarfati on the page itself. If there are "good" websites addressing Sarfati's claims, then they should be added. Does he have his own page on Talk origins?
DarthSidious 14:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The view of the NAS on creationism is indeed relevant to a creationist's article, and the status of Sarfati as a practicing scientist has previously been discussed and found to be wanting, so adding him that category is not warranted, see archived dicussions. I've restored the NAS link and removed the category, but let the removal of the link that 404s stand. FeloniousMonk 04:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Although you are wrong, I can't really be bothered arguing over the "scientist" category. But the NAS link doesn't even mention Sarfati! Unless it includes a page on Sarfati himself, it should not be included. So I'm removing it. Do you think that any other page on WP follows your logic?
DarthSidious 07:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: The submission to Nature was a paper, not a note.  See the provided citation in article, and past discussion in Talk. 121.208.180.8 18:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note is accurate, letters in Nature are not the same as a peer reviewed article in Nature, so we need to make the distinction. Also, please read the archives, this was previously discussed and part of an Arbcom case and has been long resolved and your reverting is not helping, particularly since our anon friend here, 121., is walking in the footsteps of a party banned by the arbcom ruling from editing this article. FeloniousMonk 19:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually FM, if I recall when this was discussed last time (prior to the Arbcom) the decision was made was that this was a paper. Letters are fully peer reviewed in Nature (Letters to the Editor or similar items are not). This is peer reviewed paper (it might make sense to note that Sarfati is one of many authors but that's a separate issue).  JoshuaZ 19:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Beware the anon.  •Jim62sch• 21:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except in this case the anon is correct. David D. (Talk) 00:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Letter to Nature 

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

message: Does self-reproduction = agamogenesis?  It (self-reproduction) was a red-link (I unlinked it). •Jim62sch•dissera! 20:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From the link he seems to be talking about molecules not cells. David D. (Talk) 20:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

message: Just a couple of points to consider. 
The statement that Sarfati has an advanced degree in chemistry seems inexact. Later in the article it states that he also has a Ph.D which is a postgraduate qualification but not a degree. 
Also if he has a Ph.D then should it not be Dr. Sarfati?Colonial from the Middle Island (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are Francis Crick, Fred Sanger and Linus Pauling Dr. #####  in their articles? David D. (Talk) 16:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude look in the manual of style, NO one should be called "Dr so and so" in an article regardless of their academic accomplishments. If you see other articles that describe someone as "Dr" then fix it.  Midnight Gardener (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a rhetorical question. David D. (Talk) 21:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assorted Nitpicks 

message: Way too much of this article is sourced to the CMI website. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of significant third party sourcing 

message: Looking through the bibliography, I'm not finding sources for the books. Any help? --Pete (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book sources 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Jonathan Sarfati. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to https://67.43.11.40/showpost.php?p=17980&postcount=35
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120322121835/http://www.croydonchess.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=nuUo7sinjIs%3D&tabid=64&mid=476&language=en-AU to http://www.croydonchess.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=nuUo7sinjIs%3D&tabid=64&mid=476&language=en-AU
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://members.optusnet.com.au/loganchess/montreux/montreux.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jonathan Sarfati. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080318234430/http://www.poisonpawn.co.nz/titles.htm to http://www.poisonpawn.co.nz/titles.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following quote,
' Eugenie Scott and Glenn Branch of the National Center for Science Education called Sarfati's Refuting Evolution a "crude piece of propaganda". '
Is both irrelevant here and a clear violation of neutral tone. There is no reason to include this quip here, and certainly we could get into a long edit war if we wanted to start quoting things for and against Dr. Sarfati's work on here. I am moving to have this sentence removed completely. If no one responds I will take this action myself.
--Kanbei85 (talk) 12:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Reliable source, true sentence. See WP:FRINGE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whether the source is reliable is not the point (and that is debatable based on your viewpoint). The point is that there is no reason to include it and it makes the article non-neutral. We might just as well include a quote by some other scientist about how great the work is! Whether Eugenie Scott likes 'Refuting Evolution' has no place in this article. Merely saying it is a 'true sentence' does not defend its inclusion here.--Kanbei85 (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored it. We aren't trying to be neutral, we are trying to have a neutral point of view " which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." As we are also a mainstream encyclopedia, our articles on fringe subjects are always meant to make it clear that the subject is fringe. Doug Weller talk 16:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, my comments are clearly a waste of time because you've been told this more than once, but still choose to ignore it. Doug Weller talk 16:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

text:   Wikipedia is clearly biased enough against the creation viewpoint as it is; after all, since Sarfati's page links to the Creation Science page, which overtly and falsely calls it 'pseudoscience', I think it is clear enough that this topic is 'fringe'. There is simply no justifiable reason to include a random negative quote there by Eugenie Scott-- a complete non-sequitur! Just a blatant attempt to bash and downplay Dr. Sarfati's work in a supposedly 'neutral-point-of-view' encyclopedia. I maintain this sentence is out of place. If you want to make it clear the topic is 'fringe', there is a way to do that while still maintaining neutral tone and not calling Dr. Sarfati's work crude propaganda, which it is not. For example, a statement like, "Dr. Sarfati's views run contrary to mainstream scientific consensus". --Kanbei85 (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Your opinion on Sarfati's crude propaganda does not matter. Scott's does. Bye. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is not about anyone's opinion of Sarfati or his work! This is about maintaining a semblance of neutrality as an encyclopedia, which is supposed to be an unbiased source of information. If the concern is that the page must "make it clear" that it is a so-called fringe view, that can be achieved in a neutral way. Having that quote there is just terrible writing for an encyclopedia article. It reads more like a web article from a partisan newspaper site.--Kanbei85 (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Quoting an accurate description of a fringe theory is no in any sense a violation of WP:NPOV. --tronvillain (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  1) There is nothing accurate about that description. Have you read Refuting Evolution? It is well-researched and well-argued. Nothing crude about it, and it is not propaganda, either. I strongly doubt Eugenie Scott read the book herself. 2) It is still a non-sequitur. What Eugenie Scott thinks about Refuting Evolution does not belong in this supposedly neutral, fact-based section on Dr. Sarfati's work. While it is a 'fact' that Scott made that claim (I am assuming), the content of her claim is only an opinion, not a fact. --Kanbei85 (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Creationism is well established to be a pseudoscience. Removing valid criticism of a creationist text is clearly WP:PROFRINGE. And you realize that when you're reverted, you're supposed to discuss and see what the consensus is before undoing the revert, right?--tronvillain (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Pseudoscience is a pejorative term used to dismiss opposing viewpoints. Truth is not decided by consensus-- any true scientist will tell you that. Please show me the scientific findings that have 'established' creationism to be a pseudoscience... But all of that is irrelevant here. The point is that your distaste for Dr. Sarfati's views is no excuse to spread libelous content on the bio page of a living person. Scott's attack on Sarfati is out of place here in this biography. Not a single person has been able to give a solid reasonable defense as to why that statement belongs there. Have you read the book? --Kanbei85 (talk) 19:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

text: As far as sources go, BioScience is rock solid. If a peer-reviewed scientific journal is comfortable with the wording "crude piece of propaganda" then it is perfectly valid to quote this in wikipedia. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha! Well that settles it, then! No, in reality a Darwinist, evolution-promoting publication such as that will be more than happy to smear the reputation of a prominent critic of theirs like Dr. Sarfati is. You either fail to understand, or refuse to understand, the highly divisive, partisan nature of this debate.--Kanbei85 (talk) 01:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: In reality that is not the main focus of the publication at all. AIBS has far more important things to do than debate with fringe theorists, like, you know, actual science. Among credible scientists there is no "debate" or "controversy", this is an invention of those who see everything through the prism of Biblical literalism. And no, the statement "crude piece of propaganda" is not libellous, it is well within the "valid commentary" provisions of any libel laws. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the No True Scotsman fallacy. "Credible scientists" here just means those you agree with, i.e. those who support mainstream consensus. How easily people are made to forget how many times the mainstream consensus has been proved wrong in the past. It should not be Wikipedia's job to aid in the smear campaign against consensus-challenging scientists and suppress scientific advancement in so doing. Dr. Sarfati does not deserve the demeaning treatment he's been given here. What a travesty.--Kanbei85 (talk) 01:57, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: When did he last publish a paper in a reputable scientific journal? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, the No True Scotsman fallacy. The only journals you'll consider 'reputable' are those which tow the consensus line, of course! He is a frequent contributor to and editor of the Journal of Creation, which is a peer-reviewed scientific publication. Regardless, though, he has an earned Ph.D in a scientific field and recognized work in the area of Spectroscopy, which means he deserves to be treated with respect as a scientist and not unfairly labeled a 'crude propagandist' simply because his views are politically incorrect today.--Kanbei85 (talk) 11:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: He wasn't labeled that by anyone as far as I can tell - that was their opinion of the book. And young Earth creationism is factually incorrect, not politically incorrect. --tronvillain (talk) 12:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

text: Nice WP:SYNTH you have there. Saying that a book is "crude propaganda" is not saying that the person who wrote it is a , because making the second statement has potential implications like it still applying and it being the only or primary thing about them. Similarly, saying that a movie someone once made is bad is not the same as saying the person who directed it is a bad director. --tronvillain (talk) 13:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, technically a person could write propaganda once in a while and not be overall a 'propagandist'; however in Sarfati's case, Refuting Evolution 2 is representative of the bulk of his work as a whole. If RE2 is propaganda, then Sarfati is most certainly a propagandist, as most of Sarfati's work has been aimed at defending the traditional, pre-Darwinian view of origins. Eugenie Scott's remark was itself a piece of crude propaganda, and there is no substantiation for it whatsoever. Her prominent position is no excuse for promulgating unsubstantiated smears against people she happens to disagree with, and similarly there is no excuse for promulgating that statement here on this page.--Kanbei85 (talk) 13:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You are repeating yourself, and you are not convincing anyone because what you say does not hold water. Please actually read what people write, especially the links to the Wikipedia rules pages you are ignoring. Then read those rules pages and keep the rules. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you should take your own advice here. That was not a response to anything I wrote.--Kanbei85 (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR. This appear to be entirely your own analysis:  --tronvillain (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Now we're really reaching for any excuse to criticize, aren't we? Actually, that 'analysis' may be mine, but I am not inserting that into the actual content of the article, now am I? it is also uncontroversial to anyone knowing anything about Sarfati's work.--Kanbei85 (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Motion To Strike

message: According to user MaxBrowne2, "clear consensus" has been reached about the inclusion of the non-sequitur Eugenie Scott quote in Dr. Sarfati's bio. However, as best I can tell, it is a consensus of 3 or 4 people against one (myself), which is hardly a strong consensus. More importantly, though, no one has been able to give any reasonable defense as to why that quote actually belongs in Dr. Sarfati's bio! We need more than consensus here. We need a reasoned defense of including what appears completely out of place and unnecessarily disparaging towards Dr. Sarfati. This bio page is not a forum for debating creationism. Until such a time as a reasonable explanation can be given as to why that should be there, I believe it is appropriate to tag this article for POV.--Kanbei85 (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire section above is your explanation. If you don't think the local consensus is enough, a more appropriate action would be to start an RFC. clpo13(talk) 21:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I will be happy to do so. Until it is resolved, though, the POV tag should be left in place. By quoting Scott's disparaging remark about Sarfati's book, this bio page has been turned into a forum for debating creationism. That is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia as well as the point of a bio page. Can you give any reason why it should be there?--Kanbei85 (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Safarti has made it his job to debate evolution, so it's only natural that he'd receive pushback from organizations and people who represent the scientific consensus. It would be less neutral to omit any criticism of his views. clpo13(talk) 22:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Criticism of creationism is more than well-represented already in the various pages here on Wikipedia. It does not belong on Sarfati's bio page, since the page is about Sarfati, not about creationism. Of course it's natural Sarfati would receive pushback. That is irrelevant to his bio.--Kanbei85 (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Describing "pushback" is a natural thing to do in a biography. We do it for Einstein; we do it for Darwin. It's part of the job of portraying a life. XOR'easter (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

text: Incorrect. Sarfati's debate with Ross is rightly mentioned because it is the subject of one of Sarfati's works. I don't see what that has to do with Scott's comment.--Kanbei85 (talk) 22:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: If one would turn the article into a "forum for debating", so would the other. Neither of them do, and both of them are appropriate. XOR'easter (talk) 23:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comparison with a brief mention of Hugh Ross in connection with one of Sarfati's books is inappropriate. While the entire book Refuting Compromise is dedicated to refuting Ross, no quote from Ross is contained, nor is one needed. It is not a standard practice to always include a rebuttal quote from someone who is being criticized by any work listed in a bio page! Yet, Eugenie Scott is mentioned only in passing in Refuting Evolution 2, and is not the actual subject of the work. Why is it necessary to quote her making a defamatory remark about the book? The answer is that it is completely unnecessary. If anything is needed at all, it could be reduced to a simple statement of "members of the mainstream scientific community have rejected Sarfati's work", and link to Scott's article if desired. It's called being objective and professional.--Kanbei85 (talk) 00:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You have inadvertently made a good case for including Ross's reply to Sarfati. In addition, while you claim to be "objective and professional", you insist on labeling Scott and Branch's summary of Sarfati's book as "defamatory", which is only your subjective evaluation of it. Professionals quote, accurately and representatively. XOR'easter (talk) 00:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There are ways of being non-objective simply with one's selection of what to quote and what to omit. This is a clear case of that. The quote is certainly defamatory, and non-scientific in nature. Calling Sarfati's work propaganda is not a scientific statement, but an inflammatory statement of opinion on Scott's part.--Kanbei85 (talk) 01:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I left a message for you on your talk page. Please carefully consider which path you choose to take. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

text: This is supposed to be a discussion, not just a voting popularity contest. Your comment above adds nothing to it.--Kanbei85 (talk) 23:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, it does add: the discussion at the BLP noticeboard is relevant, and it had not been linked here before. I am grateful to tronvillain for posting that link, as I had been unaware of it. Besides, noting one's agreement with prior !votes is standard practice in Wikipedia discussions, not an example of a "popularity contest". XOR'easter (talk) 23:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment-- NPOV Dispute; Clear consensus?