Talk:Jack Sarfatti/Archive 4

message: Does anybody actually have a source for the assertion that he changed his name from "Jack Sarfatt", and that some of his published papers were under the earlier name?  He seems to object to this, according to various anonymously-posted messages on user pages threatening legal action about it.  In those messages, he claims there was a misprint in his birth certificate that was corrected in 1974, so there may be a germ of truth to the name-change story, but if it was a mere clerical error it probably shouldn't be noted as a "name change" like it currently is.  And if there's no authoritative source for any of this, it should probably be removed altogether. *Dan T.* 00:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess no one's gonna stick up for that stuff.  I think that if it was just a clerical error, then it probably doesn't belong in the intro, but if it is true that he has published under the name "Sarfatt", then we ought to have it somewhere in the article.  -lethe talk [ +] 13:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the source of the claim, Lethe? I'm removing it until that's established. We have edit in accordance with WP:BLP. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea what the source of the claim is.  I imagine it would be pretty easy to check whether he ever published under the name Sarfatt, but I have no intention of doing so.  If you want to remove stuff about his name change, then be my guest.  -lethe talk [ +] 21:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've removed it. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change 

message: I made the Usenet kook award invisible, because we don't use Usenet as a source. See WP:V and WP:RS. If someone reputable has made reference to it, we could use them as a source, but otherwise including it would seem to be a policy violation. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that Usenet is valid as a source of what happened on Usenet itself, though not for events in the "outside world".  Thus, if the Usenet kook award is considered sufficiently notable to bear mention, then the Usenet itself (and related Web sites) would be a reasonable source for it. *Dan T.* 12:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Usenet may be used as a source about Usenet, but it may not be used as a source about any third party, for obvious reasons. See WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:RS. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Usenet

message: SlimVirgin, you removed "and opined that later revisions also contained errors" saying you can't see that in the paper.  But see section 1 on page 2, where Rodrigues says "there are in our opinion new [errors] which need to be corrected". -lethe talk [ +] 09:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'll take another look, Lethe, though I suggest we rewrite it as "opined" is an odd word to use. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of that word was my concession to MPerel, who wanted to qualify all the statements with "in his opinion".  I think those weasel phrases clutter unnecessarily.  Obviously opinions stated by Rodrigues are his opinions.  "Opine" means to hold an opinion.  What's the problem?  -lethe talk [ +] 21:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a good word. I've tried to tidy the article a little to make it conform to the MoS and CITE, and I've also made some citatation requests, because it lacks sources. All quotes, in particular, need citations, and there are parts where we say "see below" for the citation, but it's not clear where "below" is. I've also created references and further reading sections. Anything that is critical of the subject and not sourced, or inadequately sourced, will have to be removed very soon per WP:BLP. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been blissfully quiet around here lately.  I wonder if Jacko is on vacation?  Or maybe we've banned all his IP addresses and he can't edit any more? -lethe talk [ +] 21:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything you can do to find sources for some of the unsourced sections would be appreciated. I'll have a look around too for some. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess the megabytes of private emails that Sarfatti has been posting to this talk page are not good sources, right? -lethe talk [ +] 22:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid not. Wikipedia can't use itself as a source, plus we can't be certain Sarfatti posted any of it. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed quotes 

message: Does anyone know who added this: "I do not invent nutty physics to replace mainstream physics. I use mainstream physics to investigate apparently nutty phenomena." I can't find an online source for it other than this article. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was User:WAS 4.250 who added it in October  so I've left a note on his talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Also just noting here that I've currently got in the intro "He is regarded as "one of the leaders of the New Physics movement"," but I may delete it, because I'm not sure about the source, and it depends on what we're taking the "new physics" to mean. Einstein was arguably part of the "new physics," so I want to look around a bit to make sure the quote makes sense. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've deleted it because I don't think the source is strong enough to support it. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quote in intro

message: I've added an image, which I'm claiming fair use for. However, I see a previous image was uploaded with permission but wasn't used, so if there's controversy regarding these images that I'm not aware of, feel free to remove it. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image