Talk:Jonathan Sarfati/Archive 5

message: How is it possible for someone to be notable as a researcher?  Steve Dufour 17:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about he is a notable writer but his title at AiG is researcher?  I think that was the argument at the time.  See archives for more. David D. (Talk) 17:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I already changed the article, before I got your message, so that it says he is an "author and chess player".  From what the article says these are the things he is known for.  As a chess player he was champion of New Zealand, and his books and articles seem to be talked about.  Steve Dufour 17:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it makes little difference, certainly the chess plays some part of notability although his work with AiG is his primary reason for inclusion here. David D. (Talk) 19:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He works for CMI not AiG.60.242.13.87 01:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now he does. Any notability related to creationism occured when he was with the original AIG. JoshuaZ 01:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He is still with the same employer.  They simply changed their name (from Answers in Genesis (Australia) to Creation Ministries International (Australia)).  Your opinion would be more accurately put as Any notability related to creationism occurred when CMI was using the AiG name. Philip J. Rayment 03:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Researcher?

message: I will not so anything so radical myself....However I think all the sections on his writing and opinions and the criticism against him should be removed.  His books are already listed.  His opinions are standard conservative Christian opinions.  And the criticism is just people with a different point of view saying they disagee with him.  Nothing is remarkable or even interesting.  Steve Dufour 18:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that his books, Refuting Evolution and Refuting Evolution 2  are notable as they represented rebuttals to the National Academy of Sciences' and PBS/Nova series "Evolution," respectively both of which were quite prominent when framed in the religion/evolution debate. Thus, critiques of those books are very relevant. David D. (Talk) 19:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about mentioning the fact that the books were in response to the program and then giving the "crude piece of propaganda" quote? Steve Dufour 21:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems important since much of his notability stems from those books and the criticism of them. David D. (Talk) 22:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me:  He has written three books promoting creationism and was the chess champion of New Zealand.  Not a whole lot else to say. Steve Dufour 06:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Steve Dufour has a point.  What atheist or evolutionist has such a large portion of an article devoted to criticism?  Indeed, it's hard to find any criticism of them that their supporters don't vandalize out. 60.242.13.87 07:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Views and Criticisms

message: I removed this and then it was put back:
:According to Dave Moore at the Talk Origins Archive, Sarfati posts at TheologyWeb and other online forums using the screen name "Socrates." In 2003, in a Dave Moore article titled "Reply to Jonathan Sarfati" at TalkOrigins.org, the introduction states "Dr. Sarfati posts at TheologyWeb under the screen name "Socrates" with the habit of referring to himself in the third person".
This kind of thing doesn't belong in a WP article on a living person.  Besides being extremely petty. Steve Dufour 21:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, website login names are definitely not notable. Ashmoo 23:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hearsay

message: As far as I can tell the AfD resulted in a keep because of his chess accomplishments not because of his creationism. I therefore would like to propose drastically cutting out the creationism and other religious viewpoints and focus on the chess. JoshuaZ 21:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk about original research! 60.242.13.87 08:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: One does worry about cutting out the controversy of a controversial figure. But it might make sense for such a inor figure (but is the chess really notable? Adam Cuerden talk 21:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Joshua Z said it was, especially the draw with Spassky.60.242.13.87 08:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think Joshua's point is that it appears that the chess is the most notable aspect (not that Sarfati is notable at all).  So he should be "chess player and author", not "author and chess player".  Guettarda 21:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For Joshua Z, "neutrality" on a creationist bio means filling it with much petty criticism as he can get away with, but "neutrality" on the bio of a rabid atheist like Dawkins means getting rid of the slightest criticism.  As Phillip Rayment pointed out a while back (on the first vexatious deletion attempt), no evolutionist has huge sections devoted to "criticism".60.242.13.87 08:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another example of his "objectivity" was his own admission on his own talk page, under "Pages I have made": "TalkOrigins Archive (although was almost completely a draft from Wesley R. Elsberry)".  I.e. he posted an article about an anti-creationist site that comes from its current leader (this is neutrality in Joshua's eyes evidently).  This is exactly analogous making a CMI page that "was almost completely a draft from" Carl Wieland!  Yet Joshua Z would scream bloody murder at the thought!60.242.13.87 08:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh hi, didn't notice this early. A gentle reminder of Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy and civility policy. That said, the draft from Elsberry wasn't directly as Elsberry constructed, I wonder why, it couldn't by any chance have to do with making the draft closer to conforming to Wikipedia policies now could it? Second, you are entitled to look at the article's initial version and inform me of there were any POV concerns in it. You can find it here. If Wieland gave us a close to neutral draft of a CMI article and we had no article about CMI, I'd be happy to use his draft as a starting point. Now, do you have any actual comments to make about specific points in the article? JoshuaZ 08:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed modifications of the article (drastic) 

message: How do we archive this thing? Say, everthing up to #Gerald Joyce the faithless skeptic would suffice I think. --Otheus 02:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  I simply accepted your suggested sections (including Gerald Joyce).  Philip J. Rayment 04:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: Please let's not accuse one another of abuses of power here. Let's just talk about how to improve the article. If any contributor, even an anonymous one, feels that another contributor is abusing their admin powers, this is not the right place to bring it up. 
Of course, if you're new here you might not know this. But now you do. Admins are well aware that they must not use their position or power to gain an advantage in a content dispute, but specific instances are not within the purview of this page. Try the admin's own user talk page, or go the "third party" route. If that doesn't work, there's always 'request for comment', 'request for mediation' & 'request for arbitration'. But squabbling here isn't going to do any good. --Uncle Ed 04:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Civility, decorum and working together

message: As some of you know, a checkuser case on me has been filed, listing me as a possible sockpuppet of IP users banned from editing this article. Also, some admins have deleted my research which I was compiling on the old AA case. Until these issues are resolved, I will not be editing the article or partaking in this Talk page. --Otheus 19:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The checkuser was rejected. (Duorva and I have appealed the rejection, but I'm not holding my breath.) If anyone acts as if I am a sock-puppet (of users banned from this article), that person is assuming bad faith, and I will strongly consider filing an RfC against such a person. --Otheus 21:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I've just picked up on that in the last couple of days.  Pity I didn't get to see the evidence page before it got deleted, but at least the AfD page remains, showing that three of the five votes to delete were from editors who were subject to that ArbCom ruling.  I'll keep watching with interest.  Philip J. Rayment 14:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked 4 of those users for their rational in (a) voting for its deletion and (b) determining the page was an attack page. You see, an "attack page" if done in good faith and composed in the preparation of, for instance, a request to review the ArbCom ruling, is allowed.  Anyway, only Jim62sch was kind enough to give me an answer, which amounted to "it looked like an attack page". Neither FM, SlimVirgin, nor ElinorD responded. --Otheus 21:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accused of SSP and other things