Talk:Jonathan Sarfati/Archive 1

message: I've removed the external links for the body of the text, mainly for stylistic reasons -- especially when they're two different styles of links.  The first one I couldn't see the contextual relevance for at all.  (If we could find a link clarifying the puzzling statement about him being a Messianic Jew and a Jewish Hebrew Christian, that'd be useful though.)  The second I moved to the bib. section -- having a free link to the book's article, a running text link, and this listing is rather over-egging things, I think.  Alai 07:06, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks -- that seems clear, if confusing (if you see what I mean).  It makes me curious as to what particular denomination he's associated with (if any), but it's a pretty good basis for the statement in the article.  Alai 11:06, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, good ref.  Presumably he wanted to emphasize his Jewish heritage but not get involved with the differences between the movements when such differences probably have little to do with his line of work.220.244.224.10 00:41, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: I have done the following:
* Linked the date October 1.
* Kept the change of "Kiwi" to "New Zealander".
* Changed "...is a scientist" to "...is trained as a scientist" (see the page).  This, I hope, will not inflame anyone.
* Removed the word "secular" before the description of the journal Nature.  It's not like references to the New York Times should refer to it as "secular" as well.  If someone wants an adjective, reach for "scientific."
* Deleted "as a research scientist" because Young Earth Creationism is not a part of scientific research.
* Clarified that the AiG periodicals are reviewed only by people who've signed onto the AiG creationist beliefs; hence, not "peer-reviewed" in the same sense as a scientific journal.
You may wish to comment on the particular changes here; be careful not to lump all the changes together. --Peter Kirby 02:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Peter, please see below before making deletions/changes.  I have no issue with the date change (although is it more an American formating than Australian/New Zealander).  However, 'is trained as a scientist' is a bad 'correction', akin to trying to say that a doctor is (implied: simply) trained as a doctor.  Sarfati was and is still a scientist beyond 'training'. Furthermore, you can't have it both ways with deleting 'secular' for a secular journal, then claiming lack of peer review because TJ is not secular.  TJ is peer reviewed (by non-AiG scientists as well), and the distinction must stand.  Lastly, regardless of your POV of creation science, Sarfati's employment includes scientific research (as I've outlined below, Sarfati meets this criterion even by Wiki's definition) and his employment title includes 'research scientist'. agapetos_angel 02:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Further, "peer-review" means review by experts in the field, and this is exactly what is done with TJ.  AFAIK not all the reviewers have to accept the AiG SoF, and indeed not all articles do. 220.245.180.130 02:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Peter, may I kindly suggest you address separate issues under the separate catagories on TALK, that have already be formated, for ease in discussion? agapetos_angel 03:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

text: * I will copy some of my comments to the categories below.--Peter Kirby 03:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Edits 

message: It appears another bone of contention is the tense used.  I assert the following:
#Sarfati does not currently practice Physical Chemistry (and has no use for further studies, having obtained his doctorate).
#Sarfati does not currently teach Physical Chemistry.
#Sarfati was a chemist.
#Someone who was a chemist isn't excluded from being a chemist now merely because they aren't acting as one at this time.
Are these four points acceptable? Josh Parris # 01:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My answer to this rabbit trail separation of issues, used to obfuscate the issue, is included above agapetos_angel 01:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

text: The answer to tense was given in the previous section, before you added this section and pretended not to see it (your claims of lack of response after my response--check the date/time).  It is a rabbit trail, not a 'minimization of region of conflict'.  The issue is that Sarfati's entry correctly stated he is a scientist, falling completely in line with the Wiki definition of scientist, and the detractors of this fact have failed to offer conclusive proof to the contrary, yet keep making deletions that remove the NPOV.agapetos_angel 01:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tense 

message: Does anyone have a more precise date for his birth? Josh Parris # 12:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 1 October 1964; making correction  agapetos_angel 01:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Heh, several of us are editing the date around in circles at the same time.  Either format is fine by me agapetos_angel 03:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

text: * I'm fine with either format too.  Not sure why it should be an issue, except to make sure that the link is there.  I do understand the Day/Month/Year format used in most countries and that is fine with me. --Peter Kirby 03:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthdate 

message: Sarfati holds dual national status, both Aussie and Kiwi, which means he is as much one as the other (and in fact, spent more of his life in New Zealand--from when he moved to NZ as a child until 1996 when he moved back to Australia).  Duncharris, please do not remove Kiwi from the into again, especially without referencing why the deletion would be appropriate. Deleting important content is NOT copyediting! agapetos_angel 01:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Some New Zealanders consider Kiwi a derogatory term, besides which it is slang.  New Zelander is a more appropriate term. Josh Parris # 01:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In my experience, most New Zealanders are happy to call themselves "Kiwis".220.245.180.130 01:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree, most are happy with the term.  Some aren't.  It's slang and thus non-encyclopedic. Josh Parris # 01:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no issue with the correction to New Zealander agapetos_angel 02:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kiwi 

message: ===Period after Doctor===
This is a minor point. Is there any reference on whether it is Wikipedia-style to put the period after "Dr"? --Peter Kirby 03:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure, but most of the civilized world does not use a fullstop after contractions, such as Dr and Mr agapetos_angel 04:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * Usage is mixed, but a quick glance at Google seems to me to indicate that the period after "Dr" is more common (at least) on the Internet. --Peter Kirby 04:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Random Internet websites are not the best resource for examining proper punctuation.  I would suggest the Oxford English Dictionary.  However, it's not really a sticking point with me, personally.  I would merely point out that Australia and New Zealand use British formatting, rather than American, and perhaps that should be the deciding vote, if Wikipedia doesn't have a definitive style guide. agapetos_angel 04:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * If it is actually British formatting, then it is okay with me (and, I think, with Wikipedia). --Peter Kirby 04:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the English-speaking world omits a period if the abbreviation is the first and last letter of the word but not otherwise (doctor = Dr while editor = ed.). It also applies to plurals derived from them -- Doctors = Drs while editors = eds. 220.245.180.130 08:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  minor point 

message: This is a minor point. Is there any reference on whether it is Wikipedia-style to put the period after "Dr"? --Peter Kirby 03:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure, but most of the civilized world does not use a fullstop after contractions, such as Dr and Mr agapetos_angel 04:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * Usage is mixed, but a quick glance at Google seems to me to indicate that the period after "Dr" is more common (at least) on the Internet. --Peter Kirby 04:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Random Internet websites are not the best resource for examining proper punctuation.  I would suggest the Oxford English Dictionary.  However, it's not really a sticking point with me, personally.  I would merely point out that Australia and New Zealand use British formatting, rather than American, and perhaps that should be the deciding vote, if Wikipedia doesn't have a definitive style guide. agapetos_angel 04:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * If it is actually British formatting, then it is okay with me (and, I think, with Wikipedia). --Peter Kirby 04:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the English-speaking world omits a period if the abbreviation is the first and last letter of the word but not otherwise (doctor = Dr while editor = ed.). It also applies to plurals derived from them -- Doctors = Drs while editors = eds. 220.245.180.130 08:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Period after Doctor

message: Agapetos_angel filed a request for mediation yesterday.  The page says to note any request for mediation here, so I've done so now for Agapetos_angel.  I've also questioned, on that page, whether it is necessary at this point. I am happy enough with the "Criticism" section of the article. --Peter Kirby 05:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My request for mediation was due to the actions of others who were making deletions without compromise, unlike the 'happy medium' we reached together with give and take on both sides to attempt to reach a NPOV. Mediation may still be necessary those other parties continue in that same manner. --agapetos_angel 06:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Brian and Duncharris have both blatantly violated the Wikipedia rules: Minor edits: "Marking a real change as a minor edit is considered bad behavior, and even more so if it involves the deletion of some text."  It is especially unconscionable as they are Sysops who should know better, and both have resorted to heavy-handed banning of creationist who have tried to undo their biased and sometimes illegal editing.  They are not fit to be Sysops.138.130.200.165 00:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A request for mediation was filed 

message: : Dr Jonathan Sarfati (born 1964) is a nationality foo
(Apparently he has dual citizenship so we can leave this as Australian or Australian-New Zealand or maybe even Antipodean); this is minor point.
:* Why is this even a 'minor point'?  He is a dual national (with family in both countries, as well as around the world).  It would not be proper to call a Canadian-American -> a North American.  What would you call a dual national with Chinese-American citizenships? A worldan? An Earthling?  Furthermore, it is proper to list the residence of the person as the last nationality, hence NZ/Australian.  Additionaly, he is married to a Yank, so any natural children could have Kiwi/Yank/Aussie citizenship by birth.  The world is a melting pot. --agapetos_angel 05:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationality 

message: :Foo is a ...
Is he a notable scientist?  No, he fails the professor test and has done no more that thousands of other people with PhDs, and has done nothing extraordinary within science.  Most notably he has done nothing within science that supports creationism.
:*The professor test states: 'If the individual is more well known and more published than an average college professor, they can and should be included.'  This is a criterion for inclusion of a biography, not within a biography. 'Nothing extraordinary' is not part of the criteria for scientist and 'done nothing within science that supports creationism' is a POV, and futhermore has no bearing on his appellation of scientist. --agapetos_angel 05:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * He is an author, full stop.  He has been the author of a variety of subjects, including Ethics, Morality, Theology, Philosophy--such as his next book, co-authored with Michael Bott. The 'descriptor' you call 'good' is an inaccurate jumble.  --agapetos_angel 05:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * Authors and editors have two different functions; he has done/is doing both. --agapetos_angel 05:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

text: The benefit of the doubt should be given to one with a Ph.D. in science, with publications in unquestioned scientific literature, and who still writes about unquestioned science. 138.130.203.178 20:33, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good gracious.  He (along with Ken Ham) is known for writing the most unscientific religious diatribes against science of all the YECists.  So, tell us, what "unquestioned science" has he been writing about? Dunc|☺ 20:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: More assertions by the religious atheist Harris who uses evolution as a pseudo-intellectual justification for his faith.   Sarfati is still better qualified than Harris, and there is far more real science (i.e. observational/operational) in many of his articles than by most evolutionists.  This should be very to find.  Here's one, his arguments against (relying on his expertise in spectroscopy and research of opthalmologists) the absurd claim that the eye is poorly designed because of its backwardly wired retina, promoted by the likes of Richard Dawkins and Kenneth Miller Argument: ‘Bad design’ is evidence of leftovers from evolution 138.130.200.46 23:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To use ad hominem arguments to and about another editor, while lurking behind a series of anon addresses, seems to me to be especially unreasonable.  I'd ask you to desist from these jibes, and from editting rhetorical points into the article itself.  To describe someone a scientist is not a matter of qualifications (which are in any case stated in the article), but of activity.  Does he experiment?  Does he produce scientific theories?  Being a "science writer" (if he's quite that) or a "commentator on science" is not the same thing as being a working scientist, regardless of qualifications.  Alai 02:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you deny that Duncharris violated Wikiquette by marking deletions of text as "minor"?  What about people like Dawkins or retired physics professor Lawrence Lerner who attack creation?  Do you claim that they are not scientists because they no longer experiment?  138 is right to point out that there is noargument while Dawkins and Miller are scientific for advancing this argument.  Is S. Wroe being any more scientific than Sarfati when Wroe claims that a tooth shows poor design while Sarfati claims it is good design because it works extremely well Rats! A toothless argument for evolution?  There is no more scientific basis for asserting "no design" than "design" — this is outside the scope of operational science.220.245.180.131 04:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you aware of the distinction between criticism, and argumentum ad hominem?  Please indicate where I asserted DH was completely blameless in all matters.  However, asserting that he's unworthy to edit this article on the grounds that he's an atheist, PhD-free, and a computer programmer is "bang out of order".  And doing so at an anon ip address is thoroughly ironic, to boot.  As for the term:  "A scientist is a person who is expert in an area of science and who uses scientific methodology in research."  Do you think that JS qualifies by that definition?  (Note:  "uses", not "once used".)  Alai 04:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course he qualifies.  138 gave some examples.  And yes, I do think that Harris is out of order to judge a more highly qualified scientist as a non-scientist.220.245.180.131 09:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

text: 'Benefit of the doubt' is not in concordance with NPOV;  if it's in doubt, we report the doubt, not the facts as some people would like them to be.  His PhD is documented;  his publications are documented:  readers for whom that's sufficient to connote 'scientist' can conclude that for themselves.  I see no evidence that his "job" is in any sense "doing science", so why would anyone want to describe him as such, other than for purposing of hyping his standing?  Alai 05:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main descriptor 

message: Next comes the additional information.  His background in physical chemistry is worth mentioning.  The only other useful link that might be worked in there is to "creation science", the specific form of YECism that Dr Sarfati supports.  There might be worth mentioning that creation science is pseudoscience because
:* Both the criticism section and the YEC link talks about pseudoscience.  It is not necessary to add it elsewhere, and is being used as a POV to discredit Sarfati.  Your disagreement with creation science is POV, not NPOV biographical of this scientist. --agapetos_angel 05:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that Duncharris would know science from sciatica.  Of course, a cursory glance of Dr Sarfati's writings would show that he knows a lot about science and keeps up to date with the latest research.  Duncharris's objection is that Sarfati draws conclusions that contradict Duncharris's atheistic religion. 220.245.180.130 03:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

text: * Criticism sections are to report the POV of the critic, not to make judgments on either side.  Both sides are accurately reported, the critics got in pseudoscience and lack of scientific method, and the supporters answered the critics.  I would personally (POV) call Spong a heretic, for example, but would better point out what critics say and why.  (NB, for all the whinging here over length and contents of Sarfati's intro, Spong's intro includes where he went to public (assumedly primary) school, and outlines things *about* his writing, rather than leaving that to the biographical sections. This is a good illustration of precedence on wiki for lengthy intros, and how claims of 'fluff' and 'length' are sleight of hand tactics of the detrators to hide the bias POV that they are trying to assert.--agapetos_angel 05:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional information 

message: Use of the word "pseudoscience" is inflammatory at worst, and POV at best.  The Young Earth creationism article uses the term, that doesn't make it right - it only means that POV-pushers have succeeded in getting the article biased their way.  If you want to say that those who do not hold to it consider it to be a pseudoscience, I will not object, but for the ARTICLE to call it that, I will not accept and will keep on reverting.  David Cannon 11:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's especially absurd that one of the most vocal is Duncan Harris, a computer programmer without science qualifications.  He is also a sysop who blatantly violated Wikiquette by deleting text and marking it as a minor edit.71.100.184.44 23:03, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Josh, please learn about real philosophy of science rather than parrot naive falsificationism.  Besides, you can't complain that YEC is not falsifiable then turn around (as Gould and the NAS have done) and proclaim that many of its tenets are false.138.130.200.46 23:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you must complain, I have a degree in biology from a leading British university.  I did concentrate on evolutionary biology.  That I am also a computer programmer is because I'm a bioinformatician - I use computers to manipulate biological data, particularly genomics data, which can be used to study evolution.  I haven't done a PhD yet, but may do in the future. Dunc|☺ 19:09, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudoscience 

message: What appalling bigotry and arrogant display of condescending rhetoric I've just read in this exchange below. One can be a scientist and still not accept the THEORY of evolution. The scientific method is about testing observables and coming up with theories that match the data in a repeatable fashion which can be verified by others. To say that since one takes information from the Bible to inform their presuppositions thus invalidates any subsequent scientific work following those assumptions is fatuous in the extreme. We all have presuppositions and starting points for our beliefs: whether they be scientific or meta physical. There is a growing number of scientists with NO religious affiliation who are finding serious flaws with evolutionary theory. But the mainstream establishment of science reacts in what well may be characterized as a knee jerk very defensive posture when dealing with such criticisms. This is not uncommon in the history of science. Teach evolution - fine. But also teach problems with it. And don't dismiss those who have honestly and with a solid scientific method arrived at differing conclusions as being "non-scientists" and their work "pseudo-science". That is intellectually dishonest and psychologically infantile.
Zach
Posted by User:172.149.159.73, 08:41, 24 August 2005.  Moved to keep some semblance of thread order on this page.  Alai 19:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Top-posting anon comment moved

message: Unsupported allegation of banning (or even membership!) to Theologyweb was posted in article.  Removed --agapetos_angel 00:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Sarfati is known for his large ego and for being excessively rude. Dunc|☺ 00:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well pot, meet kettle.  Dunc would never be rude to anyone would he, and he is the epitome of humility. 220.245.180.130 05:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

text: He is - or was - at Theologyweb with the username "Socrates" and it appears he did indeed get banned for trolling.  See  ,  as examples.  I'll try to find the theology web thing as well, once I've worked out how to search their forums properly. Dunc|☺ 00:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Talk origins is hardly a proper primary source to prove these allegations of membership and/or banning. Reverting for improper sourcing and unsupported allegation.  (Furthermore, theologyweb admin never disclose real names of members (privacy statement), so any allegations can only be considered guesswork, which could subject someone to libel charges for printing what they cannot prove is true.) agapetos_angel 05:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  And the allegation came from the troll "70.182.0.5" who also wrote such gems as "the idiot himself", which should have resulted in a stern warning from an admin like Duncharis, not trying to find support in the Internet rumor mill for the accusations.220.245.180.130 05:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

text: ITs an internet rumor that he was under the username Socrates, the proof is very poor. A similar example is people believing Matt Slick to be the other Matt that works at CARM. 12.220.47.145 21:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't stop Duncharris from trying to push this rumor, this time from a bulletin board.  Good grief! 58.162.246.25 07:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsupported allegation removed

message: This is getting tedious.  TJ is not peer reviewed in the commonly understood sense of the word.  Although it is "peer reviewed" by fellow creation scientists, it is not peer-reviewed by mainstream scientists.  Its findings do not even come close to what is accepted in mainstream biology, geology or astronomy.  If AiG could publish in mainstream journals they would, it would give them huge kudos.
We had a similar discussion at talk:Answers in Genesis a while ago.  It presently states:
In 1984, CSF started the Ex Nihilo Technical Journal for more in-depth analysis of creation issues. It was later renamed Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal then simply TJ. TJ is a refereed journal, reviewed by members of the creationist community who share the same beliefs [1].
Now, if you must insist of having it peer-reviewed it is not NPOV to fail to mention that these peers are not "those who share the same beliefs". Dunc|☺ 18:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Having seen this on Requests for Comments, I agree entirely with Duncharris' assement and wording. --G Rutter 21:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is irrelevant.  AiG has claimed that non-creationists have reviewed articles, and they would probably know better than Duncharris about their own peer review.  However, most establishment journals allow only materialist peer review in articles pertaining to origins. 203.213.77.138 07:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  TJ and peer review