Talk:Jonathan Sarfati/dispute

message: This page has been set up to discuss material that User:agapetos_angel would like to add to, or delete from, Jonathan Sarfati and related articles.
AA, if you would like to try this, please write out a very specific list of the precise sentences (please be very precise) you want to add to the article, and link to (or give a citation for) your source. Similarly, list the sentences that are currently in the article that you want to remove, and say exactly why.
It would be helpful not to go over what other editors have said in the past, because it makes the issue too complex for those of us not familiar with the background.
If you provide that list, I'm willing to go through it and give an opinion as to whether the additions/omissions seem acceptable and whether they conform with our editing policies. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 01:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The content issues that agapetos angel wanted to raise seem more or less to have been settled, and the non-content aspects of the dispute are before the arbcom, so I'd say there's probably no further need for this page, and it might be best to continue posting on Talk:Jonathan Sarfati instead. Thank you to everyone who took part in the dispute resolution, and who made suggestions for compromise or found sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

message: Sarfati has had papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals (Abstracts available on ScienceDirect.com).  
:* Comment: While in the current version, removal was attempted.  Abstracts are linked, confirming AiG bio.  Each journal on the list was linked in Talk to show that articles are peer-reviewed.  Abstracts from reputable source (sciencedirect) shows all are articles.  A-->B, therefore, all are peer reviewed.
:** Recommend: Retention
:*** Justification: Meets WP:V
===D1===
Discussion regarding # 1:
That seems fine to me. Pulling out two of those articles, they are (1) "Tetraphosphorus tetraselenide: crystalline and amorphous phases analysed by X-ray diffraction, Raman and magic angle spinning 31P NMR spectroscopy and differential scanning calorimetry", by Jonathan D. Sarfati, Gary R. Burns and Keith R. Morgan in Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, Volume 188, Issues 1-2, 2 July 1995, Pages 93-97, and (2) "The pressure, temperature and excitation frequency dependent Raman spectra; and infrared spectra of CuBrSe3 and CuISe3", by Jonathan D. Sarfati and Gary R. Burns, in Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular Spectroscopy, Volume 50, Issue 12, November 1994, Pages 2125-2136. 
Their existence means it's verified that he has had papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also fine with this. JoshuaZ 03:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've not been involved with this so far, but I think this problem could be reduced by being more specific. "Sarfati has had papers on Spectroscopy published in peer-reviewed scientific journals..." or maybe even the slightly less precise, but much more common and readable: "Sarfati has published papers on Spectroscopy in peer-reviewed scientific journals...". --Stephan Schulz 08:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's okay too.  I'm fine with any version of this that includes the basics (published, peer-reviewed, scientic journals, spectroscopy) and retains the link to the abstracts.  It's not the wording; it was the removal of accurate (sourced) facts. agapetos_angel 09:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are all the papers on spectroscopy? agapetos_angel 09:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's clearly essential that we say what field he was published in. Grace Note 13:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need to be super-specific (though equally it doesn't hurt), just so long as it's clear what general area they're in (i.e., physical chemistry, which AFAIK certainly covers it).  Alai 20:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've looked at the five abstracts, and they all describe experimental results obtained by X-ray spectroscopy on various samples of condensed matter.--Stephan Schulz 20:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not X-ray spectroscopy, and unless he analysed liquids, it would be sufficient to put "solids" rather than "condensed matter".220.245.180.133 09:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Given the information now available, I suggest the following (and, if nobody protests, will put it in): From 1988 to 1995, Sarfati has published several papers on X-ray spectroscopy of condensed matter samples  in peer-reviewed scientific journals.  Abstracts are available on ScienceDirect.com. --Stephan Schulz 10:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm fine with that Stephen, except to note that it was pointed out that the link giving the search results expires.  The link to SD.com should be sufficient, I think. (Abstracts are available on ScienceDirect.com)agapetos_angel 13:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I noticed that the results time out, but the search term stayed in. I found that not perfect, but useful... --Stephan Schulz 14:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having realised that the statement regarding peer-review of the articles was correct, I think AA's suggestion is sufficient.  Results that time-out are more of a pain than having to type in the author's name.  Jim62sch 21:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 1

message: Discussion regarding # 1:
That seems fine to me. Pulling out two of those articles, they are (1) "Tetraphosphorus tetraselenide: crystalline and amorphous phases analysed by X-ray diffraction, Raman and magic angle spinning 31P NMR spectroscopy and differential scanning calorimetry", by Jonathan D. Sarfati, Gary R. Burns and Keith R. Morgan in Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, Volume 188, Issues 1-2, 2 July 1995, Pages 93-97, and (2) "The pressure, temperature and excitation frequency dependent Raman spectra; and infrared spectra of CuBrSe3 and CuISe3", by Jonathan D. Sarfati and Gary R. Burns, in Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular Spectroscopy, Volume 50, Issue 12, November 1994, Pages 2125-2136. 
Their existence means it's verified that he has had papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also fine with this. JoshuaZ 03:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've not been involved with this so far, but I think this problem could be reduced by being more specific. "Sarfati has had papers on Spectroscopy published in peer-reviewed scientific journals..." or maybe even the slightly less precise, but much more common and readable: "Sarfati has published papers on Spectroscopy in peer-reviewed scientific journals...". --Stephan Schulz 08:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's okay too.  I'm fine with any version of this that includes the basics (published, peer-reviewed, scientic journals, spectroscopy) and retains the link to the abstracts.  It's not the wording; it was the removal of accurate (sourced) facts. agapetos_angel 09:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are all the papers on spectroscopy? agapetos_angel 09:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's clearly essential that we say what field he was published in. Grace Note 13:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need to be super-specific (though equally it doesn't hurt), just so long as it's clear what general area they're in (i.e., physical chemistry, which AFAIK certainly covers it).  Alai 20:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've looked at the five abstracts, and they all describe experimental results obtained by X-ray spectroscopy on various samples of condensed matter.--Stephan Schulz 20:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not X-ray spectroscopy, and unless he analysed liquids, it would be sufficient to put "solids" rather than "condensed matter".220.245.180.133 09:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Given the information now available, I suggest the following (and, if nobody protests, will put it in): From 1988 to 1995, Sarfati has published several papers on X-ray spectroscopy of condensed matter samples  in peer-reviewed scientific journals.  Abstracts are available on ScienceDirect.com. --Stephan Schulz 10:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm fine with that Stephen, except to note that it was pointed out that the link giving the search results expires.  The link to SD.com should be sufficient, I think. (Abstracts are available on ScienceDirect.com)agapetos_angel 13:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I noticed that the results time out, but the search term stayed in. I found that not perfect, but useful... --Stephan Schulz 14:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having realised that the statement regarding peer-review of the articles was correct, I think AA's suggestion is sufficient.  Results that time-out are more of a pain than having to type in the author's name.  Jim62sch 21:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: D1

message: Sarfati is married with one stepson.
:* Comment:  Attempts made to change do not meet policy
:**Recommend: Retain above version (source)
:*** Justification: Change violates Wikipedia:No original research, namely 'material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source'
:**** Reasons given: for inclusion appear to be that an editor 'found' it 
:***** Objection: not linked to subject of article
:*** Justification: Change violates Wikipedia:Reliable sources
:**** Reasons given: are not readily apparent
:***** Objection: "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."  Submission to that source is a fill-in web form with no indication that the facts are checked or accurate.  Credibility is not met (and in fact, suspect because cache shows recent change of information)
 
===D3===
Discussion regarding # 3:
:*I would agree with removing the wife's name, regardless of how good the source is. It adds nothing to the article, which is not about her, unless it can be shown that she is in some way notable in relation to him, or in her own right. But as there has been an objection, I'd say leave it out in accordance with WP:LIVING. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: **I agree, Slim. I don't see why it's important to give a nonpublic figure's name in a public figure's biography. It's not important not to, either, in my view, but if it's contested, there should be good reason to continue to include it. Grace Note 13:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: ***I also agree it doesn't seem at all notable, absent any argument as to why it is, and I don't think the source is anything to write home about, either.  It would be regretable if this were being done in overreaction to WP:AUTO concerns.  If there's objection to the "anonymous family", I don't see any necessity to include any of it.  Alai 20:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: ****Leave it out.  It is a distraction. David D. (Talk) 20:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 3

message: Discussion regarding # 3:
:*I would agree with removing the wife's name, regardless of how good the source is. It adds nothing to the article, which is not about her, unless it can be shown that she is in some way notable in relation to him, or in her own right. But as there has been an objection, I'd say leave it out in accordance with WP:LIVING. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: **I agree, Slim. I don't see why it's important to give a nonpublic figure's name in a public figure's biography. It's not important not to, either, in my view, but if it's contested, there should be good reason to continue to include it. Grace Note 13:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: ***I also agree it doesn't seem at all notable, absent any argument as to why it is, and I don't think the source is anything to write home about, either.  It would be regretable if this were being done in overreaction to WP:AUTO concerns.  If there's objection to the "anonymous family", I don't see any necessity to include any of it.  Alai 20:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: ****Leave it out.  It is a distraction. David D. (Talk) 20:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: D3

message: Critics and supporters of Sarfati often disagree whether he should be considered a scientist. Young Earth Creationism is considered a pseudoscience by almost all scientists. Supporters argue that his doctorate in physical chemistry qualifies him as a scientist. The creationist website Answers in Genesis to which Sarfati contributes lists many creationists who are active in science (though for work unconnected to creationism), and advises readers that many of the founders of modern science, such as Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell had a general belief in the creator God of the Bible and opposed evolution.  A point critics reject as invalid since evolutionary theory was not developed until after many of those listed had died. Sarfati suggests that evolutionary ideas date back at least to Greek philosophers, and these scientists were well aware of them . His view is not widely shared in the scientific community. and these earlier evolutionary ideas were very different from the modern theory. Sarfati's doctorate is in physical chemistry. Some critics question his knowledge in apparently unrelated fields- namely biology and astronomy. 
:* Comment:  Section is a complex, unverifiable mess as it now stands. Have previously recapped objection  but will repeat if deemed necessary.
:**Recommend: Removal until revised to meet WP:V
:*** Justification: (1) 'The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it' 
:*** Justification: (2) '... unless the article or information is about a living person, in which case remove the unsourced information' 
:**** Reasons given: for inclusion appear to vary, but main reason seems to be assertion that sources within the section support the statements as given. 
:***** Objection: Weasel words and unsourced/unattributed statements are unverifiable, and violate WP:OR because they are editor opinion rather than attributed statements (and WP:NPOV appears violated for the same reason).
:****** Additional Comment: Sources within a section does not equal sources that support the section in entirety.  Note (again) that I am not objecting to inclusion of similar statements, but that they have to not violate policy.
===D4===
Discussion regarding # 4:
I'm inclined to have a slight agreement with Agapetos here. I suggested a revised version earlier which Agapetos rejected, making a number of suggestions and requests. I hope to have a draft which deals with those issues by sometime this Friday. JoshuaZ 04:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Joshua, I don't know if you meant to imply that I rejected it outright.  I said, 'I think it was a good attempt, but still needs work'.  I don't want to get into a he said/she said.  But I must point out that my objective was always to have the OR removed and the section meet WP:V.  I was willing to work with you on the revisions, including suggestions I already gave you on how to proceed from your draft (paragraph that begins "Why the use of 'some critics' (weasel) when you have names?" )  agapetos_angel 04:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't mean to imply that you had rejected it outright. That was poor phrasing on my part. Sorry. JoshuaZ 04:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay.  No worries. agapetos_angel 05:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section violates WP:NOR in that it is an unsourced argument. Even if sources could be found for each individual point, the overall thrust of the argument might have to be sourced too, because NOR prohibits the publication of any unpublished synthesis of ideas, where the synthesis is used to advance a particular position. In other words, it would be safer to find someone who had actually made that particular overall point and attribute the position to them, rather than to find sources for each individual part of the argument. Joshua, I suppose it depends on what your sources say. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that this rises to OR;  I agree on the weaselly wording and lack of an explicit source.  How notable any of his various critics that have levelled such charges, may also be an issue.  Alai 08:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that a position is being advanced without sources, the paragraph does indeed rise to OR by definition. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, OR means that no appropriate primary sources exist, not that they've not been cited.  By your definition, 99.9% of wikipedia is "original research".  Which is not to say that they shouldn't be cited, which clearly, they should.  Alai 08:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not what it means, Alai. If that were the case, we could never call anything OR, because it is never possible to prove that no sources for a particular position exist. All we can do is note that no sources have been produced. Advancing a position without producing sources is to engage in original research. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it would not, since absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence, if one has troubled to look for the evidence.  But isn't, if one has not.  Advancing a position without sources isn't verifying that one isn't engaging in OR, but is not in itself determinative that one is.  Otherwise, as I say, we'd have to delete 99.9% of WP as being in violation of policy (and ban approximately 100% of the editors for doing so).  The distinction is worth making, as OR is often cited (as in this case) for peremptory deletion of poorly sourced/weasel-worded material, as opposed to more systematic reworking of it.  At any rate, I must cease splitting hairs and get some sleep, and in any case I'm happy to wait on JZ's offer of redraft in the hopes it's more directly sourced.  Alai 09:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know what you mean, and take your point, but the problem is that this section, or versions of it, have been in the article for months without sources. As soon as a source request was made, it needed either to be sourced or deleted. Just because something can be reworked and sourced so that it's no longer OR, doesn't mean it wasn't OR to begin with, and to distinguish OR from material that is merely unsourced would lead to difficult (and, in fact, irrelevant) questions. If I were to say: "R.M Hare was the kind of professor who made even the humblest of his students feel they had mastered the topic," is this OR or is it simply unsourced? The question is not answerable until a source is found, which means, according to your argument, that we could never definitively declare something to be OR, given that a source could be found at any minute. The point is that when an editor publishes an argument on Wikipedia without first checking that the argument has already been published by a reputable source, then s/he is engaging by definition in original research, even if a published source is later found. But regardless, whether we want to say that the section in question is a violation of NOR or just a violation of V, it's unquestionably a violation of something. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I essentially agree with this;  it's not reasonable to leave something unsourced indefinitely, especially where there's been an objection, on the basis of it being sourced "real soon now".  As I say, if reasonable search efforts fail to find a suitable source, that is strong evidence that it's OR.  (Or if the issue is 'low-grade' sources, that's also problematic.)  I must admit to a certain sensitivity to NOR being as a hyperbolic catch-all debating tactic in "removing stuff one doesn't like" disputes, which would often be more usefully be framed in sourcing/V-ing terms, even if the distinction is ultimately moot.  Alai 20:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, fair point. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: AA, that's a pretty inaccurate summary in many, many respects.  But to confine myself to just one for now:  your counterargument here is essentially that, yes, many critics of JS do make this criticism, but you wish to rule them out as themselves being insufficiently notable, and/or on the grounds of the medium of the criticism.  Alai 09:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The critics and supporters have to be named, and their criticism/support must have been published in credible publications. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've removed my comment because I was clashing with SV, and his answer was a better worded version of the same point. agapetos_angel 09:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, I'm a she. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 10:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oops, sorry. agapetos_angel 10:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it would be more accurate to say, former (working) scientist who does nonscience (both because CS, especially biblical-presuppositional CS, fails the scientific method test, and because JS's activities in the area don't appear to much resemble research of any kind, even ignoring that consideration).  Saying he's a scientist in the existential sense, due to having a PhD, is to make that somewhat opaque.  But certainly he's fully qualified to "do science", and he wouldn't be the first person to do both real science and pseudo- on a time-spliced basis, were he to do so.  If a particle physicist has a sideline in phrenology, he's still a scientist when he's doing work of the first kind (one hopes), and whether he's "a scientist" in some philosophical sense is well worth avoiding.  But your basic point is correct:  the further we get into the "Sarfati and AiG say he's a 'PhD scientist'/'research scientist', others beg to differ", argument, the more sources will inevitably degrade, so the more briefly we can treat of that whole topic, the better, IMO.  Alai 20:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Therefore, in light of the obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it and ... unless the article or information is about a living person, in which case remove the unsourced information, is my point that the section violates policy and should be removed until such time that it no longer violates policy valid? agapetos_angel 23:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it should be removed until a source is found. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources will be provided. It's a simple matter. FeloniousMonk 00:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Give FM the time to get the sources.  As it is, Sarfati is a scientist to the extent allowable by his previous work.  However, it appears based on a ten year plus hiatus from publishing papers on his area of expertise that he is no longer doing that work.  As YEC-theory is clearly pseudoscience, it becomes difficult to say that he is presently doing science.  In fact, the only assertion that he is doing science comes from his employer, and that assertion is questionable as the clear symbiosis created by the statement precludes any sense of objectivity. Jim62sch 22:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 4

message: Discussion regarding # 4:
I'm inclined to have a slight agreement with Agapetos here. I suggested a revised version earlier which Agapetos rejected, making a number of suggestions and requests. I hope to have a draft which deals with those issues by sometime this Friday. JoshuaZ 04:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Joshua, I don't know if you meant to imply that I rejected it outright.  I said, 'I think it was a good attempt, but still needs work'.  I don't want to get into a he said/she said.  But I must point out that my objective was always to have the OR removed and the section meet WP:V.  I was willing to work with you on the revisions, including suggestions I already gave you on how to proceed from your draft (paragraph that begins "Why the use of 'some critics' (weasel) when you have names?" )  agapetos_angel 04:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't mean to imply that you had rejected it outright. That was poor phrasing on my part. Sorry. JoshuaZ 04:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay.  No worries. agapetos_angel 05:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section violates WP:NOR in that it is an unsourced argument. Even if sources could be found for each individual point, the overall thrust of the argument might have to be sourced too, because NOR prohibits the publication of any unpublished synthesis of ideas, where the synthesis is used to advance a particular position. In other words, it would be safer to find someone who had actually made that particular overall point and attribute the position to them, rather than to find sources for each individual part of the argument. Joshua, I suppose it depends on what your sources say. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that this rises to OR;  I agree on the weaselly wording and lack of an explicit source.  How notable any of his various critics that have levelled such charges, may also be an issue.  Alai 08:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that a position is being advanced without sources, the paragraph does indeed rise to OR by definition. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, OR means that no appropriate primary sources exist, not that they've not been cited.  By your definition, 99.9% of wikipedia is "original research".  Which is not to say that they shouldn't be cited, which clearly, they should.  Alai 08:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not what it means, Alai. If that were the case, we could never call anything OR, because it is never possible to prove that no sources for a particular position exist. All we can do is note that no sources have been produced. Advancing a position without producing sources is to engage in original research. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it would not, since absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence, if one has troubled to look for the evidence.  But isn't, if one has not.  Advancing a position without sources isn't verifying that one isn't engaging in OR, but is not in itself determinative that one is.  Otherwise, as I say, we'd have to delete 99.9% of WP as being in violation of policy (and ban approximately 100% of the editors for doing so).  The distinction is worth making, as OR is often cited (as in this case) for peremptory deletion of poorly sourced/weasel-worded material, as opposed to more systematic reworking of it.  At any rate, I must cease splitting hairs and get some sleep, and in any case I'm happy to wait on JZ's offer of redraft in the hopes it's more directly sourced.  Alai 09:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know what you mean, and take your point, but the problem is that this section, or versions of it, have been in the article for months without sources. As soon as a source request was made, it needed either to be sourced or deleted. Just because something can be reworked and sourced so that it's no longer OR, doesn't mean it wasn't OR to begin with, and to distinguish OR from material that is merely unsourced would lead to difficult (and, in fact, irrelevant) questions. If I were to say: "R.M Hare was the kind of professor who made even the humblest of his students feel they had mastered the topic," is this OR or is it simply unsourced? The question is not answerable until a source is found, which means, according to your argument, that we could never definitively declare something to be OR, given that a source could be found at any minute. The point is that when an editor publishes an argument on Wikipedia without first checking that the argument has already been published by a reputable source, then s/he is engaging by definition in original research, even if a published source is later found. But regardless, whether we want to say that the section in question is a violation of NOR or just a violation of V, it's unquestionably a violation of something. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I essentially agree with this;  it's not reasonable to leave something unsourced indefinitely, especially where there's been an objection, on the basis of it being sourced "real soon now".  As I say, if reasonable search efforts fail to find a suitable source, that is strong evidence that it's OR.  (Or if the issue is 'low-grade' sources, that's also problematic.)  I must admit to a certain sensitivity to NOR being as a hyperbolic catch-all debating tactic in "removing stuff one doesn't like" disputes, which would often be more usefully be framed in sourcing/V-ing terms, even if the distinction is ultimately moot.  Alai 20:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, fair point. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: AA, that's a pretty inaccurate summary in many, many respects.  But to confine myself to just one for now:  your counterargument here is essentially that, yes, many critics of JS do make this criticism, but you wish to rule them out as themselves being insufficiently notable, and/or on the grounds of the medium of the criticism.  Alai 09:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The critics and supporters have to be named, and their criticism/support must have been published in credible publications. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've removed my comment because I was clashing with SV, and his answer was a better worded version of the same point. agapetos_angel 09:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, I'm a she. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 10:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oops, sorry. agapetos_angel 10:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it would be more accurate to say, former (working) scientist who does nonscience (both because CS, especially biblical-presuppositional CS, fails the scientific method test, and because JS's activities in the area don't appear to much resemble research of any kind, even ignoring that consideration).  Saying he's a scientist in the existential sense, due to having a PhD, is to make that somewhat opaque.  But certainly he's fully qualified to "do science", and he wouldn't be the first person to do both real science and pseudo- on a time-spliced basis, were he to do so.  If a particle physicist has a sideline in phrenology, he's still a scientist when he's doing work of the first kind (one hopes), and whether he's "a scientist" in some philosophical sense is well worth avoiding.  But your basic point is correct:  the further we get into the "Sarfati and AiG say he's a 'PhD scientist'/'research scientist', others beg to differ", argument, the more sources will inevitably degrade, so the more briefly we can treat of that whole topic, the better, IMO.  Alai 20:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Therefore, in light of the obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it and ... unless the article or information is about a living person, in which case remove the unsourced information, is my point that the section violates policy and should be removed until such time that it no longer violates policy valid? agapetos_angel 23:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it should be removed until a source is found. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources will be provided. It's a simple matter. FeloniousMonk 00:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Give FM the time to get the sources.  As it is, Sarfati is a scientist to the extent allowable by his previous work.  However, it appears based on a ten year plus hiatus from publishing papers on his area of expertise that he is no longer doing that work.  As YEC-theory is clearly pseudoscience, it becomes difficult to say that he is presently doing science.  In fact, the only assertion that he is doing science comes from his employer, and that assertion is questionable as the clear symbiosis created by the statement precludes any sense of objectivity. Jim62sch 22:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: D4

message: His latest book, Refuting Compromise is a rebuttal of the day-age creationist teachings of Dr. Hugh Ross, who attempts to harmonize the Genesis account of creation with the belief that the earth is billions of years old, a position which Sarfati rejects.  
:* Comment:  This section was removed
:**Recommend: Retention
:*** Justification: WP:CON, a version of this statement has been in the article at least since the unprotect. WP:V (and Wikipedia:Importance, although that isn't policy).
:**** Reasons given for exclusion:  None, that I found.  It was simply removed by FM without discussion.  Questioned here twice.
:***** Objection: Lack of objection to content
:****** Additional Comment: What is 'wrong' with keeping the Ross information, which explains the reason for the most current book that Sarfati authored? The subtitle is A biblical and scientific refutation of ‘progressive creationism’ (billions of years) as popularized by astronomer Hugh Ross(; therefore, the teachings should have a very brief mention to clarify why Sarfati wrote the book.  
===D5===
Discussion regarding # 5:
:*I'm unclear about the context, but I assume someone keeps removing the reference to Ross? The question is: is the latest Sarfati book a rebuttal of Ross's creationist account? If Sarfati says that it is in his book (whether he specifically uses the word "rebuttal" or not), it's worth mentioning. If not, then not. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *My copy has on the front cover, "A Biblical and Scientific Refutation of "Progressive Creationism" (Billions of Years) As Popularized by Astronomer Hugh Ross".220.245.180.133 08:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *That would settle the matter then. Definitely worth mentioning. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Has a reviewer perhaps suggested he had another purpose? Not that I'm suggesting they have. Grace Note 14:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see what the problem'd be here.  Perhaps make it clear(er) that this is the publisher's/JS's charactisation of the purpose of the book, not just editorial inference on WP's part.  Say, use 220.'s quote directly, rather than in paraphrase.  Alai 21:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Can it be made clearer still? I'd say most readers won't understand the meaning of "harmonizing the Genesis account with the belief that the earth is billions of years old". I'd say something like: "His latest book, Refuting Compromise, is a rebuttal of the creationist position popularized by astronomer Dr. Hugh Ross, who argues that, although God created mankind, the fossil record is accurate, and creationist stories in the Bible should be regarded as myths, rather than historical descriptions." (Just a suggestion; feel free to ignore). SlimVirgin (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think Ross's argument is slightly more complicated than that. You may want to see the wiki page on him for more details. Incidentally, I think this kept getting taken out just because it got caught up in all the other reverts going on. JoshuaZ 00:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Joshua. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm very open to suggestions for alternative wording.  I just think it is important to include a brief overview of what the book is rebutting. agapetos_angel 08:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Pardon me for a moment while I smack my forehead.  Well done, Joshua!  I agree. (maybe just add Ph.D. after Ross? or is that overkill?) agapetos_angel 01:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me.  To the point without sounduing contentious.  Jim62sch 22:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 5

message: Discussion regarding # 5:
:*I'm unclear about the context, but I assume someone keeps removing the reference to Ross? The question is: is the latest Sarfati book a rebuttal of Ross's creationist account? If Sarfati says that it is in his book (whether he specifically uses the word "rebuttal" or not), it's worth mentioning. If not, then not. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *My copy has on the front cover, "A Biblical and Scientific Refutation of "Progressive Creationism" (Billions of Years) As Popularized by Astronomer Hugh Ross".220.245.180.133 08:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *That would settle the matter then. Definitely worth mentioning. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Has a reviewer perhaps suggested he had another purpose? Not that I'm suggesting they have. Grace Note 14:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see what the problem'd be here.  Perhaps make it clear(er) that this is the publisher's/JS's charactisation of the purpose of the book, not just editorial inference on WP's part.  Say, use 220.'s quote directly, rather than in paraphrase.  Alai 21:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Can it be made clearer still? I'd say most readers won't understand the meaning of "harmonizing the Genesis account with the belief that the earth is billions of years old". I'd say something like: "His latest book, Refuting Compromise, is a rebuttal of the creationist position popularized by astronomer Dr. Hugh Ross, who argues that, although God created mankind, the fossil record is accurate, and creationist stories in the Bible should be regarded as myths, rather than historical descriptions." (Just a suggestion; feel free to ignore). SlimVirgin (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think Ross's argument is slightly more complicated than that. You may want to see the wiki page on him for more details. Incidentally, I think this kept getting taken out just because it got caught up in all the other reverts going on. JoshuaZ 00:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Joshua. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm very open to suggestions for alternative wording.  I just think it is important to include a brief overview of what the book is rebutting. agapetos_angel 08:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Pardon me for a moment while I smack my forehead.  Well done, Joshua!  I agree. (maybe just add Ph.D. after Ross? or is that overkill?) agapetos_angel 01:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me.  To the point without sounduing contentious.  Jim62sch 22:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: D5

message: 1988, FIDE Master title, Fédération Internationale des Échecs or World Chess Federation
:* Comment: Fédération Internationale des Échecs is the correct name.  Was reverted to 'The International Chess Federation'
:** Recommend: Retention, with slight copyedit modification
:*** Justification: Accurate name is sourced within Wiki, and also here
:**** Reasons given for exclusion:  None that I found.
:**** Revision Suggestion: 1988, FIDE Master title, Fédération Internationale des Échecs (World Chess Federation) 
===D7===
Discussion regarding # 7:
Again, if this true and properly sourced, I don't see the problem with it. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there was any particular dispute over FIDE Master as such, though I must admit I too was getting rather narked off at one point at the speed at which things like fixing link texts were getting reverted in the general merry-go-round.  Alai 08:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FIDE is like FIFA. It should be rendered as an acronym because the French isn't very well known. Otherwise, being a Master is sufficiently accomplished to be mentioned. If I were one, I'd want it mentioned in my biography. Grace Note 14:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I were one, it'd be my middle name. SlimChessMasterVirgin (talk) 01:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which reminds me:  I think the original dispute and/or incidental reversions here were to, link to FM, link text as "chess master".  Which is suboptimal, as there are several grades (like the masons? :), which this obscures.  i.e., would you be SlimCandidateMasterVirgin, SlimInternationalMasterVirgin (sounds like a new type of phone chip), etc, etc.  But I don't think that's currently disputed.  It would indeed be hard to mention chess at all without saying this, and I don't think anyone is saying not to mention chess at all.  Alai 20:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, FIDE Master is the title.  The wiki-link goes to the article that outlines the other titles that FIDE awards. agapetos_angel 04:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be rendered only as an acronym, IMO, which is the most common form of the reference by far.  Anyone still confused what 'FIDE' is, even given the context, need but click on links.  Alai 04:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with acronym throughout the article, but my opinion is that the Honors/Awards/Associations entry should reflect the full proper association name.  Inclusion isn't the big issue for me, though; accuracy is.  If it's there, it should be correct.  agapetos_angel 08:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 7

message: Discussion regarding # 7:
Again, if this true and properly sourced, I don't see the problem with it. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there was any particular dispute over FIDE Master as such, though I must admit I too was getting rather narked off at one point at the speed at which things like fixing link texts were getting reverted in the general merry-go-round.  Alai 08:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FIDE is like FIFA. It should be rendered as an acronym because the French isn't very well known. Otherwise, being a Master is sufficiently accomplished to be mentioned. If I were one, I'd want it mentioned in my biography. Grace Note 14:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I were one, it'd be my middle name. SlimChessMasterVirgin (talk) 01:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which reminds me:  I think the original dispute and/or incidental reversions here were to, link to FM, link text as "chess master".  Which is suboptimal, as there are several grades (like the masons? :), which this obscures.  i.e., would you be SlimCandidateMasterVirgin, SlimInternationalMasterVirgin (sounds like a new type of phone chip), etc, etc.  But I don't think that's currently disputed.  It would indeed be hard to mention chess at all without saying this, and I don't think anyone is saying not to mention chess at all.  Alai 20:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, FIDE Master is the title.  The wiki-link goes to the article that outlines the other titles that FIDE awards. agapetos_angel 04:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be rendered only as an acronym, IMO, which is the most common form of the reference by far.  Anyone still confused what 'FIDE' is, even given the context, need but click on links.  Alai 04:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with acronym throughout the article, but my opinion is that the Honors/Awards/Associations entry should reflect the full proper association name.  Inclusion isn't the big issue for me, though; accuracy is.  If it's there, it should be correct.  agapetos_angel 08:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: D7

message: Sarfati has strongly defended the pro-life cause.  Thus he opposes abortion for any reason  except to save the life of the mother  and opposes embryonic stem cell research, while supporting adult stem cell research.  He has also argued that the Bible contradicts slavery and apartheid  , and argued that Nazism owed much to evolutionary ideas.
:* Comment: An objection was made that this article needed to adhere to WP:MOS guidelines, particularly to external links.  I agree with this and see the Moral issues subsection is the largest offender.  
:** Recommend: Overlinkage can be reduced to one link per point.  Or my preferred recommendation is to create a Resources (footnote) section for external links with subsections such as: 'Resources'/'Moral issues'. 
:*** Justification: There were two editors who made separate complaints on the overlinkage/external linkage issue
:**** Reasons given:  I think the issue was readability.  (Perhaps the distraction of too many external link markers?)
:***** Example:
Sarfati has strongly defended the pro-life cause.  Thus he opposes abortion for any reason except to save the life of the mother and opposes embryonic stem cell research, while supporting adult stem cell research. He has also argued that the Bible contradicts slavery and apartheid, and argued that Nazism owed much to evolutionary ideas. 
After which would be a link to the bottom of the article, one link for the entire paragraph, where something like this would be found:
*==Resources==
*===Another subheader==
*===Moral issues===
** Sarfati's opposition to abortion for any reason (1)
** Sarfati's opposition to abortion for any reason (2)
** Sarfati's opposition to abortion for any reason (3)
** Sarfati indicates "life of the mother is the only exception" to his opposition to abortion
** Sarfati's opposition to embryonic stem cell research/support for adult stem cell research
** Sarfati's analysis that the Bible contradicts slavery and apartheid (1)
** Sarfati's analysis that the Bible contradicts slavery and apartheid (2)
** Sarfati's analysis that Nazism owed much to evolutionary ideas (1)
** Sarfati's analysis that Nazism owed much to evolutionary ideas (2)
** Sarfati's analysis that Nazism owed much to evolutionary ideas (3)
*===Another subheader==
Alternatively, just a resource header with no subheaders.  I think the subheaders will add to the article in that it will make it easy, if cloned from the article subheaders, for the reader to find the resources that support the claims made in the article. Corrective phrasing of above would be fine.  I just didn't like the seemingly POV 'argued', but there might be justification of that usage, I'm not sure. agapetos_angel 23:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right. Without the links, the above would be full of unsupported assertions.  They are not too intrusive either.220.245.180.133 08:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was not my point to remove the sources entirely, which goes entirely against what I've been attempting to do with the other section.  I'm just looking to place one link after the paragraph, rather than 10 links within it.  agapetos_angel 23:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Links within the paragraph are cognate with endnotes while yours are more like further commentary. The style with links is very common on WP and in my view definitely a good way to go. Because we want all our articles tightly sourced (no, really, we do!), this is an excellent way of doing it without saying "Blah Blah said x and Bloo Bloo said Y" all the time. Grace Note 05:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay.  I'm still trying to get a handle on the best way to source, but agree fully that things must be sourced.  I'll bow to the wiser here on that issue :) agapetos_angel 13:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 8

message: Discussion regarding # 7:
Lots of links are better than too few. I don't support the removal of links unless the articles or websites linked to are poor sources, or are entirely repetitive. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right. Without the links, the above would be full of unsupported assertions.  They are not too intrusive either.220.245.180.133 08:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was not my point to remove the sources entirely, which goes entirely against what I've been attempting to do with the other section.  I'm just looking to place one link after the paragraph, rather than 10 links within it.  agapetos_angel 23:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Links within the paragraph are cognate with endnotes while yours are more like further commentary. The style with links is very common on WP and in my view definitely a good way to go. Because we want all our articles tightly sourced (no, really, we do!), this is an excellent way of doing it without saying "Blah Blah said x and Bloo Bloo said Y" all the time. Grace Note 05:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay.  I'm still trying to get a handle on the best way to source, but agree fully that things must be sourced.  I'll bow to the wiser here on that issue :) agapetos_angel 13:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: D7

message: External links in the entire article should follow the WP:Manual of Style guidelines.
===D7a===
Discussion regarding # 7:
Not sure what this means. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This really ties into # 7 above (I'll call this discussion 7a, for that reason).  I was looking to compromise with other editors whose complaint was that the links were excessive and distracting.  While I do not find sourcing excessive (quite the opposite), I do see the point that the WP:MoS places External links in a separate place in the article under their own subheader. (Note: SV's comment above was prior to my clarification of this point, so confusion is completely understandable!) agapetos_angel 23:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I see the point now. A better way to organize references is to create a References section at the end, listing full citations for books, articles, and websites that have been used as sources, and below that a Further reading section that lists anything of interest related to the topic, but which has not actually been used as a source. See WP:CITE for more details, and Rat Park for an example (scroll to the end). My own preference is always to have inline embedded links after the sentence or paragraph the source is supporting, in addition to full citations in the References section. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Formats were just a suggestion.  I'm not opposed to any arangement of the links (as long as they remain to support the articles claims) that meets the style guidelines. My main goal on this was to compromise with the editors who were supporting that the WP:MoS had to be followed. agapetos_angel 04:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 7a

message: Discussion regarding # 7:
Not sure what this means. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This really ties into # 7 above (I'll call this discussion 7a, for that reason).  I was looking to compromise with other editors whose complaint was that the links were excessive and distracting.  While I do not find sourcing excessive (quite the opposite), I do see the point that the WP:MoS places External links in a separate place in the article under their own subheader. (Note: SV's comment above was prior to my clarification of this point, so confusion is completely understandable!) agapetos_angel 23:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I see the point now. A better way to organize references is to create a References section at the end, listing full citations for books, articles, and websites that have been used as sources, and below that a Further reading section that lists anything of interest related to the topic, but which has not actually been used as a source. See WP:CITE for more details, and Rat Park for an example (scroll to the end). My own preference is always to have inline embedded links after the sentence or paragraph the source is supporting, in addition to full citations in the References section. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Formats were just a suggestion.  I'm not opposed to any arangement of the links (as long as they remain to support the articles claims) that meets the style guidelines. My main goal on this was to compromise with the editors who were supporting that the WP:MoS had to be followed. agapetos_angel 04:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: D7a

message: SV, this section was intended to be a work in progress (hidden note under header).  I'm making notes and will use above format for ease in reading.  I just wanted to take a couple steps at a time, while not losing train of thought on this issues.  Sorry for the confusion.  agapetos_angel 08:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. I'll repeat/modify my replies depending on what you say. Post a note somewhere when you've finished so that I know it's okay to respond. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My fault.  I should have made that more obvious.  I just needed a break, but didn't want to forget where I was headed. agapetos_angel 08:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've finished addressing all the concerns I can remember.  I think I brought each back to the original point I was making on the original Talk page, with modificcations where my original points might not have been clear enough (and addressing the new concerns that popped up).  I want to thank all the editors who are participating here to reach WP:CON through compromise and discussion.  Special thank you to SlimVirgin for her assistance in trying to clear these up after all the long, draining weeks of dispute in Talk. agapetos_angel 23:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome. I hope it has helped. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seems to have done.  In a short time, we have reached consensus on several issues that were debated for weeks. agapetos_angel 08:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WiP confusion/Thank you

message: We seem to have reached consensus on all the issues so far as I can see. Let me know if I've misunderstood anything:
*The Socrates Internet troll claim is not sourced to a good-enough source per WP:V and shouldn't be added. (This is the point over which there is least agreement, so we may need to discuss it further.)
*The names of family members is not relevant and shouldn't be added.
*The section about the extent to which Sarfati can be regarded as a scientist is original research and/or unsourced, and should be removed until a source is found. Joshua and FM will look for a source.
*This sentence may be added: "Sarfati has published papers on Spectroscopy in peer-reviewed scientific journals (abstracts available on ScienceDirect.com)" [with links]
*This sentence may be added: "He also co-authored a "Letters to Nature" submission on high-temperature superconductors [end there, or add to this], which was published in 1987 [which gets in the word "published," which AA wanted, but leaves out the age." (Nature (ISSN 0028-0836), vol. 328, July 16, 1987, p. 233, 234)
*This sentence (or a close version of it) may be added: "His latest book, Refuting Compromise is a rebuttal of the day-age creationist teachings of Dr. Hugh Ross, who attempts to harmonize the Genesis account of creation with the belief that the earth is billions of years old, a position which Sarfati rejects."
*The chess material is relevant and notable, though it shouldn't be labored, and if there are different levels of Master, it should be made clear which level he has reached.
*Links are fine after the sentence/paragraph, but AA is willing to move them to an external links section, which I've suggested be split into a References and Further reading section.
Is the above about right? If so, it's probably a good idea for AA not to make these changes, so could one of the other editors on the page make them, unless there is still disagreement? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you mean about Talk:Origins. It gets a good write-up. AA, how opposed are you (or anyone else) to including the Socrates claim? Is there any wording you could agree to? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  (ec) Is there a source for the author of the unattributed, introductory statement?  It refers to Moore in the third person ('This article is Mr. Moore's ... Mr. Moore reports'), and we can't be sure that it is representative of something Moore said. agapetos_angel 08:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, Moore is only one source among many(particularly, the most acceptable to use within wiki policy). I think therefore that it falls under the category of "When the holders of the opinion are too diverse or numerous to qualify." see . JoshuaZ 15:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it's important to have at least one actual reputable source.  The lack of notability of that point would lead, I think, to failure of the 'too diverse or numerous' criterion.  YMMV.  (Maybe some should remove the point from the summary and move this continued discussion back under the point as it's still being discussed?)  agapetos_angel 01:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that was more or less agreed above, so I'll remove it. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Summing up

message: I disagree slightly on the Socrates issue. It seems to me, at least looking at other webpages that are largely internet only phenomena, that when something is intrinsically internety, the standard for reporting common behavior is acceptable. Furthermore, talkorigins.org (the website, not the usenet group talk.origins) is a fairly reliable website which has been endorsed and/or recommended as a useful reliable source by Science, Scientific American, the NAS, the AAAS, the Smithsonian Institute and others. Also, a number of major highschool bio textbooks, such as the latest addition of Stern's Introductory Plant Biology recommend the website as a resource. All of these and more are listed on :http://talkorigins.org/faqs/awards/ . Thus, it is almost overkill to use talkorigins.org as a source to report the Socrates claim (as a claim, not as definite). 
However, I am on near complete agreement about everything else. 
JoshuaZ 01:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you mean about Talk:Origins. It gets a good write-up. AA, how opposed are you (or anyone else) to including the Socrates claim? Is there any wording you could agree to? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  (ec) Is there a source for the author of the unattributed, introductory statement?  It refers to Moore in the third person ('This article is Mr. Moore's ... Mr. Moore reports'), and we can't be sure that it is representative of something Moore said. agapetos_angel 08:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, Moore is only one source among many(particularly, the most acceptable to use within wiki policy). I think therefore that it falls under the category of "When the holders of the opinion are too diverse or numerous to qualify." see . JoshuaZ 15:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it's important to have at least one actual reputable source.  The lack of notability of that point would lead, I think, to failure of the 'too diverse or numerous' criterion.  YMMV.  (Maybe some should remove the point from the summary and move this continued discussion back under the point as it's still being discussed?)  agapetos_angel 01:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that was more or less agreed above, so I'll remove it. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Summing up discussion

message: It might be a good idea to look at recent edits to the article.   Jim62sch 01:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone has changed 'Scientist' to 'Scientific credentials' and brought the issues to a concise nutshell.  Would that be an acceptable edit if 'While he lacks specfic scientific credentials that would lend credibility to his Young Earth Creationism publications' was attributed/sourced to a specific critic or critics?  agapetos_angel 01:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You would have to find a credible third-party source who said that he lacks specific scientific credentials (or isn't a scientist, or whatever the criticism is). Every single piece of criticism must be attributed to someone other than Wikipedia or unnamed "opponents." SlimVirgin (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In a certain aspect, that of lending credibility to his YEC publications, his scientific credentials aren't relevant as YEC is considered a pseudo-science.  Behe's credentials certainly haven't helped his case or that of ID, which is also seen as a pseudoscience, and via a court decision, as religion masquerading as science.  Jim62sch 23:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Losing sight of the article?

message: Ok, does someone have a final version of that section that they can paste here and see if we can agree on yet? JoshuaZ 05:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did some editing of the page today in accordance with this discussion, and I deleted that section entirely until it's rewritten with sources. It would also be good to say something about his creationist views, which the article doesn't touch on. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Dave, the article doesn't violate that section of NOR because the article is not about a theory, and it doesn't violate that section of NPOV, because no one has yet (that I have seen) found a reputable source who calls Sarfati a pseudoscientist. There is no rush at all to add a criticism section. See WP:LIVING: criticism in articles about living persons must be very carefully written and sourced. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here: "[2]. But that doesn't seem to stop Sarfati pontificating upon any subject under the sun on the AiG website [3] [4], when he lacks basic qualifications in most subject areas. Is that the stench of hypocrisy in the air? " from .  This, too, is of interest Two Years Later.  And there is this, .  OK, how about this? .  Would that be sufficient?  Jim62sch 23:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the sources is a blog, so no. The others are talkorigins.org, which is very borderline, so I suppose it depends who the authors are. I've asked this before and got no answser, but perhaps you know: who are Dave Moore, Gary Hurd, Reed A. Cartwright, and Douglas L. Theobald? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No real knowledge of Moore. Cartwright and Theobald are both major contributors/editors of talkorigins.org. In any case, while I'm inclined to agree about Panda's Thumb, talkorigins.org is reliable enough that we shouldn't need more information about Moore(furthermore, if AiG is ok to cite, talkorigins.org definitely should be). JoshuaZ 01:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AiG has paid staff. Does talkorigins.org? See WP:RS. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: See the following for an idea of who Theobald is, , ,  .  I think this should be sufficient to establish his bona fides.Jim62sch 11:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Theobald looks like a good source. Thanks for finding the links. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: You're welcome.  Here are three for Gary S Hurd, PhD,   .  He should be acceptable as well.  Jim62sch 17:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's an anthropologist, so I suppose it depends on what he is saying and where he's saying it. Remember that personal websites are not allowed as third-party sources unless it's a website set up by a known professional in a relevant field. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Moore is an astronomer, his work was used as a reference for a Texas case:  Jim62sch 18:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Given that, I think it makes sense to put Moore's comments in. Any objections? JoshuaZ 22:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I object to the inclusion of Moore until we know who he is. In what sense is he an astronomer? And the case you linked to, Jim, just includes a link at the end to an article of his on talk.origins. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He hasn't finished an undergraduate degree, so one must question whether he is an authority.203.213.77.138 04:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: He seems to be an astronomer involved with irishastronomy.org -- unfortunately, that's not as strong from a CV perspective as one might like.  The real bummer with that is this: as a long-time student of cosmology and physics I know that he is right and that his paper would pass muster with cosmologists.  On the other hand, the fact that his paper was referenced by the American Astronomical Society , a well-respected organization in existence for 107 years, in their evidentiary paper to the Texas School board regarding the teaching of creationism/intelligent design in schools would seem to indicate that his paper is accurate.  Jim62sch 12:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Cartwright should be acceptable as well:    Jim62sch 22:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jim, it would be helpful if you could summarize what you find, rather than making us all pour through the links. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 03:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, Slim. Can I plead temporary dimness?  ;) Jim62sch 12:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science Section 

message: :Thank you, Dave. This is a vast improvement. Thank you for writing it!  Some comments below. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that the second and third paragraphs including many of the links are based on the suggested paragraphs by JoshuaZ which were thought acceptable. I've made no attempt to search for more substantial links, as my aim has been to provide a draft for further development and I'd hope that this is something that can be amended and refined. ..dave souza, talk 18:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The first link above is a personal website, which is not allowed as a third-party source, and the second doesn't contain the word "pseudoscience" so far as I can see. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points. Strike the first, the second mentions both Creationism and Creation science, and is cited in the article on pseudoscience: instead of ",but" the sentence could change to "–see". ...dave souza, talk 18:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't use it as a source for that sentence, given that it doesn't mention pseudoscience, and adding "see pseudoscience" is your own argument again. Why is everyone so keen to get the word "pseudoscience" into this article? If reputable sources have used the word of Sarfati or specifically about AiG's work, name them and add it; but if not, please leave it out. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The above is not needed because it's unsourced and repeated below with sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an introduction to say what the following's about. Could be trimmed a bit, but at the least the controversy should be linked.  ...dave souza, talk 18:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Who is Dave Moore exactly? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An example of a critic of S on TalkOrigins, who describes himself on the page as ""currently (June 2003) almost half-way through a part-time degree in Physical Sciences (majoring in Astrophysics)". See above note about getting better links, though TO appears to be accepted by most parties. ..dave souza, talk 19:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't use an anonymous contributor on the basis that s/he's doing a part-time bachelor's. :-) That's pretty close to a definition of the kind of source we don't use. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Two comments: 1) For internet based phenomena, you will often have much weaker sourcing by nature. 2) talkorigins.org is in general highly reliable and well thought of (see the above discussion and/or take a look at their award list. JoshuaZ 00:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Just a point about embedded links: we don't add descriptions to them in the body of a text, but just leave them as numbers. See WP:CITE. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: oops, typos. See source links given earlier for the second. ...dave souza, talk 19:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The final paragraph is your own argument and therefore OR. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Partly by JoshouaZ, suits me to leave the paragraph out. ...dave souza, talk 19:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: See "Science Section".  Adopt, adapt, improve.  No more OR.  Jim62sch 23:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Should be Creation science articles: source . ...dave souza, talk 22:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I've added a version of Dave's criticism section to the page, following the discussion above about sources. See here. I'm hoping that will be enough to make the page more balanced, and that the criticism can be expanded as and when more good sources are found. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Science

message: (subheader continued:) ... so long as the sources aren't personal websites, and the writers are themselves known, or qualified, or professional researchers/writers
[I edited the subheader, Dave, because it was so long that everything was skewed off-screen agapetos_angel 00:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should be Creation science articles: source . ...dave souza, talk 22:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I've added a version of Dave's criticism section to the page, following the discussion above about sources. See here. I'm hoping that will be enough to make the page more balanced, and that the criticism can be expanded as and when more good sources are found. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Parts that might be acceptable