Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:12, 30 January 2006

Old discussions: /archive1

Not happy about the current edits being made.

Firstly I don't like to see anonymous users (i.e. 58.162.252.67) make fairly controversial edits to a controversial page. I'm not sure what the official Wiki opinion on this. Let me know if you find out. I'll look too.

In the edits by 58.162.252.67

1) "deleted CJB's misquotes about homosexuality (he used "homonazi" to mean those who want to punish those who criticize homosexual behaviour)"

I'm quite happy for the editor to include this information. However I dispute that the whole paragraph should be removed. I think it is fairly relevant that Sarfati has made comments which would be grossly offensive to homosexuals.Christianjb 17:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Homonazi lacks intent to offend homosexuals, as feminazi lacks intent to offend feminists (or women, for that matter), as Nazi lacks intent to offend Germans. While is it probably true that the majority of homonazis are homosexuals, that the majority of feminazis are femanists (and women), and that the majority of Nazis were German, it lacks credibility to show offense of behalf of the whole for the overly sensitive and emotive reaction of the one (or the few). This is akin to saying that one who speaks out against terrorist Muslims insults all Muslims. agapetos_angel 02:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Christianjb decided to reply on my talk page (moved to his, under 'Sarfati') rather than respond here. I'll leave it to the reader to discern why or if that reply has merit, but I still contend what I said above, and which Christianjb has not refuted. The affront to the one (or few) is not indictive of the insult to the whole, nor to the intent of insult to the whole. agapetos_angel 02:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

2) ("(though for work unconnected to creationism)" is not true. real scientists who are/were biblical creationists)

Another removal. It's factually true that Safarti's publications in mainstream jounals were for work unconnected to creationism. This is quite important. If I get a PhD in Physical Chemistry and then expound upon cosmetic surgery touting my PhD, I think people should have the right to know that my PhD is in an unrelated field. (BTW, I do have a PhD in Physical Chemistry! Just like Sarfati.)

I'll give 58.162.252.67 a few hours to respond to these points. Otherwise I'll revert these two edits. I would like to see a compromise in which both points of view are reflected in the article.

Finally, I don't like 58.162.252.67 accusing me of "misquoting". There's really no need for finger pointing here. I fully sourced the quote and I tried to give it in its proper context. If you disagree, then let's have a reasonable discussion. Thanks Christianjb 17:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm waiting for "advocacy" regarding similar edits by 58.162.252.67 on the Answers in Genesis page. If anyone has any comments about this then let me know. Christianjb 22:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I have given anonymous editor 58.162.252.67 over 24 hours to reply to these comments on the talk page. No response so far. I am now going to reinsert the text which was removed. It is carefully sourced, pertinent and factually accurate. Without the possibility of such criticism this page is nothing but a vanity page. Christianjb 01:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Today we are again seeing edits from another (or possibly the same) anonymous user 156.110.211.130 removing text from the page critical of Sarfati. Once again the anonymous user has declined to discuss these points on the talk page as requested. In my opinion without such discussion about controversial statements, this page should be considered a vanity page.

I am not asking for the content of the anonymous editor to be removed. I am asking for alternative points of view to be shown. Christianjb 05:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry if agapetos_angel felt that I should have responded here instead of on his talk page. I'm happy for him to post anything on my talk page on this page. I am not keeping any secrets. Please go to my talk page to see my detailed reply- or if you want you can post it here. Thanks Christianjb 10:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

And SHE would ask that you refrain from cluttering my talk pages with drivel that doesn't belong there. If you have a reply, post it here. You speak of respect, but show little. I have no idea why you posted a copy of a letter on my talk pages, but it has been removed for pushing your own POV agenda. Replies belong where they are associated, not spread like spam everywhere else. You were personally offended, that's your thing. However, it doesn't make the original statement wrong or POV because of your offense. (And how many men would be called beloved (agapetos) angel? Good grief, man) agapetos_angel 01:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Also if agapetos_angel could refrain from interspersing his/her comments with mine. Please respond beneath my comments. This shows proper respect for me and for Misplaced Pages. Thanks. Christianjb 11:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

If you didn't ramble on about several different points in the same section, it would be simplier to respond. As it is, a verbose reply after your verbosity would be more confusing. Using indents fixes that issue. agapetos_angel 01:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

No- don't intersperse your comments. It chops up my text and doesn't show proper respect for the readers, for Misplaced Pages, or for my views. It makes this page much more difficult to read. Thanks, Christianjb 02:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Calling my response 'drivel' is insulting. I will not be responding to your criticism unless you can restate it in a less offensive manner. Please read No personal attacks. Thanks. Christianjb 02:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for calling you by the male pronoun. Agapetos is not a common name in Texas, and I'm unfamiliar with it. Still- no excuse for assuming you were male. I don't know enough about theology to know whether angels are male or female- and I've never met one or ever seen any evidence they exist- please excuse my mistake.Christianjb 02:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Agapetos is Greek for 'beloved' (agape = love), even in Texas agapetos_angel 03:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Homonazis

How was the sentence

This usage would be generally considered offensive to homosexuals given their history of persecution during the Holocaust.

POV? Josh Parris#: 06:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The homosexual Ernst Röhm was one of the most responsible for Hitler's rise to power.58.162.252.67 14:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

How was the sentence

This usage may be considered offensive, given that adult male Roman Catholic priest molesters of female children are not generally referred to as "heterosexual priests" when referring to their crimes.

POV, especially when 100% of of "pedophile priests" molest children? Josh Parris#: 06:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

(Let me point out here that in my comments below I obviously misread comments from Josh Parris! My apologies! It's late where I am. Christianjb 07:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC))

Thanks for the comments. I don't understand your first comment. I'm pointing out the logical inconsistency:

• Priest molesting male child -> Sarfati labels "gay priest"
• Priest molesting female child -> Sarfati presumably labels "pedophile priest"

How silly. Some people are so sensitive. Sarfati's article made it clear what he meant. If a priest molests young men, as most of the offenders seem to do (and he pointed out that it's a tiny minority of priests), he is gay, not a pedophile. 58.162.252.67 14:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

You claim the second sentence is POV. Of course it is! There's nothing wrong with expressing a point of view attributable to a particular group in an article. e.g. Jews find antisemitic comments offensive. What is wrong is to attach a POV to the article. There's a clear distinction.

• Green eggs are disgusting - > POV
• Sam does not like green eggs -> A POV of Sam, not a POV of the article.

Thanks Christianjb 06:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

User:156.110.211.130 removed the second sentence here, claiming a WP:NPOV violation. But I don't see it as one. Perhaps User:156.110.211.130 or someone else can explain how it is POV? I would have thought This usage may be considered is offensive, given that adult male... would have been POV. The other sentence was removed without comment, so should be restored or explained (I presume that the same POV complaint applied) Josh Parris#: 06:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll endeavor to restore the sentence making it as clear as humanly possible that this is a point of view expressed by homosexuals who object to being labelled as nazis and fascists. If anyone can provide a source showing me that homosexuals like to be called nazis then it should be included. I think the gay-priest/pedophile-priest label at least indicates a possible logical inconsistency. If someone wants to show me where a male child molester of female children is referred to as "heterosexual criminal" instead of say.. "pedophile" then I also support that information being included. I don't want to exclude information from this page. Christianjb 07:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Once again, CJB can't read. Blind Freddie can see that Sarfati was referring to homosexuals who advocate jailing Christian dissenters to the pro-homosexual view. Nazis and other fascists also jailed dissenters to their politically approved view. Perhaps CJB sees nothing wrong with jailing pastors who preach from their religious text, the Bible, that homosexual acts are sinful. Yet CJB falsely accused Sarfati of using the term for homosexuals who objected to biblical injunctions against homosexual behavior.

=

The comment immediately above was unsigned which is not only confusing, but shows disrespect to me and to Misplaced Pages rules. Please sign in future. Thanks Christianjb 11:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't respond to what I perceive as insulting comments. If you can rephrase your question in a sensible manner I will endeavor to answer your questions. It would also help if you did this through an account, rather than as an anonymous user so I know who I'm talking to. Christianjb 11:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I felt that the following text should be removed.

that a reader commended: Your Feb 6 response to the letter Objections to Homosexuality was so excellent I could scarcely believe it. Totally accepting of the person, totally factual and insightful.

I am open to compromise on this issue. At the moment I feel that this is unencyclopedic puffery. It's part of a fan letter to Answers in Genesis and contains no information pertinent to the discussion. I really doubt that an encyclopedia article should be quoting fan letters. Christianjb 10:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, CBJ has misrepresented Sarfati severely, and this fan letter posted by another anon seems to balance CJB's bigoted insinuation that Sarfati hates homosexuals.58.162.252.67 14:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

If you can rephrase that statement in a non-insulting manner then I will endeavor to respond fully and honestly. Please reread No personal attacks. Thanks Christianjb 11:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

See the Answers In Genesis talk page for Christianjb's true feelings about the matter, complete with insults. Funny that he complains that everything he can't answer is an insult, while insulting in a worse manner elsewhere. agapetos_angel 03:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Come clean

I would personally like to know if Sarfati is an editor on this page. There's no hard rule explicitly forbidding someone from editing a page about themselves (though it is discouraged), but I would prefer that they didn't do it through an anonymous identity. Christianjb 23:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Would the appellation evolutionsux@yahoo be any more revealing? Most users, regardless of signing in or not, are anonymous. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the article. agapetos_angel 03:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, maybe you're right- I'm not 100% sure on this issue. I do know that no other encyclopedia (except maybe Who's Who) allows people to write their own Bio's. However, I do have some sympathy with the position that people ought to be able to defend themselves against scurrilous attacks on the internet- and they might prefer to do that anonymously. At the moment it seems like an imperfect system. I can see both sides of the issue. Christianjb 03:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

You know, I thought about this some more, and I think that it's just too difficult for me to make any more edits on this page. I restate that this page is turning out to be a vanity page about a very controversial figure, but there's little protection in place for the individual in question to adequately defend himself. I am uneasy either way. I will instead concentrate on Answers in Genesis, where I can make most of the same points. I have no problem with Sarfati himself, who is unknown to me as either a scientist or a chess player, though he appears to have had some success with both. I only know Sarfati through his published opinion essays, which I feel is ok to debate- but still- it makes me uneasy. I personally wish Sarfati best of luck with his chess playing.Christianjb 04:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Authorship list

As it stands I think the sentence about "co-authoring a Nature paper when he was 22" sounds to my ears like vanity and puffery. Sarfati's name is fourth on the authorship list. This is hardly a great claim to fame. It's certainly something to be proud of, and it's worth noting that he published in an academic journal (given his current views). However, it's not a particularly notable achievement for an encyclopedia.

I added the disputed "his name is fourth on the authorship list" as perhaps an indication that this isn't a particularly notable achievement (even for a 22 year old) as far as encyclopedia mentions go.

This page is in grave danger of becoming a vanity page for Johnathan- who is certainly not a notable scientist with no particular scientific reputation. I'm not saying he wasn't a good scientist- he's just not famous enough for his scientific accomplishments to be trumped on a Wiki-page. I'm willing to bet that the first author of the paper doesn't have his own entry.

JS is known, not for his science, or particularly for his chess, but for making highly controversial statements. This Misplaced Pages page should reflect that.

Since Sarfati edits this page himself I think he has a duty to sign in, identify himself and answer this criticism.

Thanks, Christianjb 23:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Neither is the fact that he is married with one stepson, or commentary on one of his thousands of articles, but it didn't stop either from being included. You claim it's worth noting, then claim the opposite. This seems more like an attention-seeking ploy than a serious complaint. agapetos_angel 01:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure this comment is worth replying to given its insulting tone. If Agapetos wants to restate that comment in a less accusing manner then I will reply. Thanks Christianjb 02:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Stop complaining. Presumably a former NZ chess champion is known in NZ chess circles. And it is worthy to note that a leading creationist has shown himself to be a capable scientist, otherwise the likes of CJB would say "no creationist is a real scientist".

CJB has been on a constant campaign to denigrate Sarfati, and has made a number of demonstrably false statements, such is is lack of objectivity. Even when corrected, he finds another excuse to denigrate.02:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

If you want to sign your above comment I will respond. Thanks. Christianjb 02:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

See the Answers In Genesis talk page for Christianjb's true feelings about the matter, complete with insults. Funny that he complains that everything he can't answer is an insult, while insulting in a worse manner elsewhere. agapetos_angel 03:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

No- I have a policy of not responding to insult or personal attacks. There are many comments that I would like to respond to in detail- but I've decided that I should try and be consistent in my policy. Thanks. Christianjb 03:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

What a hypocrite. This is the guy who calls Answers in Genesis, and by implication their aupporters, "bunch of backwards despicable dishonest lying redneck fascist creeps." CJB likes to dish out the venom but can't take it.58.162.245.148 08:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

And I stand by my right to my personal opinions about an organization. For the purposes of editing a Misplaced Pages page it doesn't matter to me what your personal opinions are. They're personal. As I explained in some detail- I stated my personal opinions because of the continuing insinuations of other editors. I knew that this would be opening myself up to numerous cheap shots from anonymous editors. Please respect my rights to my opinions as I respect your rights to your opinions. I am not asking to convert anyone or offend anyone here. I don't believe anything I have said is any worse than the pages and pages of comment I've read on Answers in Genesis (some of it by Sarfati) regarding people with my politics. I assume that you being a supporter would agree with AiG- in which case you assume that people like me are on a mission to attack Christianity, increase abortions, increase murder, promote fascism etc. etc. Well it works both ways Mr/s anon reviewer, I find AiG's opinions offensive and you probably find my personal opinions offensive. I ain't being no hypocrite about this. Christianjb 09:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, as I said above (below?) I'm quitting this page. I wish all the anonymous editors here good luck and I wish Sarfati good luck with his chess. I'll probably see you on the AiG page. Christianjb 09:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Trivia

I suggest we start a trivia section. I've seen these in many other entries. I used to post a lot at the Theology Web forum and many people thought Dr. Sarfati posted as a user name "Socrates." In fact, the jury is still out. Any thoughts? --Jason Gastrich 10:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Unsigned makes the odd suggestion that unsubstantiated rumour and innuendo belong in an encyclopedic article. A "Trivia" section should include tidbits like "Dr Sarfati likes playing Uno in his spare time". Gossip, regardless of the standing of this so-called 'jury', belongs in supermarket rags, not on Misplaced Pages. agapetos_angel 10:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Oops! Now, I signed. Sorry. It's REALLY late. --Jason Gastrich 10:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Some critics

Avoiding original research and POV, critics must resolve the 'some critics' in the 'Scientist?' section. Text preserved below for addition of reputable sources: agapetos_angel 11:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Postscript: Edited this discussion for clarification of complaint. The entire section is based on what 'critics' and 'some critics' supposedly say, unattributed accusations that lack reputable sourcing, thereby failing the "no original research" criterion agapetos_angel 21:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the preserved text because it can easily be found and distracts from the discussion where my point was split up by another comment agapetos_angel 07:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

A very important point. "Content must not violate any copyright and must be verifiable." Unnamed critics, supporters, claims about arrogance etc. clearly violate this rule. Also, appeals to what the "scientific community" say etc., or an editor's own opinion of what they say, seem to violate the Wiki rules against original research. Agapetos angel is certainly right, and opponents should put their personal biases aside and deal with the actual wiki rules.

"Some critics" are weasel words, and as such, to be avoided .220.245.180.133 09:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually it was written because some of the creationists here were trying to describe him as a scientist, when he does no scientific research into creation (zilch, nada). Actually, the criticism section does need beefing up though as it's not up to WP:NPOV#pseudoscience, yet. Anyway, the idea important because Sarfati is known especially for his arrogance and a using his PhD as an appeal to authority, because the basis of that authority (scienctific research backing into creation) is so lamentably missing. — Dunc|☺ 21:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

That makes it original research, Duncharris, and validates the point that it doesn't belong in this article. Until the 'some critics' are sourced, it should not be included. 58.162.252.236 23:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The 'some critics' of this entire section are unsourced, and thereby original research. Duncharris' attempt to silence me by banning me in opposition to Misplaced Pages rules (being in the edits and making judgments anyway, banning on the third revert instead of a fourth, etc.) does not change this fact. The text is reserved above for editing to meet Misplaced Pages guidelines if someone wishes to do so. To simply put it back into the article is in violation of original research. agapetos_angel 00:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Guettarda said, in comment, rather than talk "(rv, again - material is sourced; comments on talk apply to only the first line - and even that IS SOURCED)". Cite your sources about 'some critics', please. Three links to AiG site, and one to True Origins, does not constitute the citing of sources as you claim. "Critics and supporters of Sarfati often disagree" source? "Supporters would argue" source? "Thus, some critics find it reasonable" source? agapetos_angel 01:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I am leaving this as is for a reply for a day or so. At that time, the revert will be made to remove it per Misplaced Pages rules of citing sources and I will appeal to admin for review/comment agapetos_angel 01:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Calling someone a scientist who has a Ph.D. in science is hardly POV. Duncharris' assertions violate the rule about original research. One would expect better from an admin — obedience of the rules is a good start, and not banning one's opponents would be nice too.220.245.180.134 04:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Shame on Duncharris for exposing his own POV. Not only is Sarfati a scientist he is a brilliant scientist. David D. (Talk) 08:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

That may be true, but "brilliant" is also POV. Duncharris is clearly very bitter towards Dr Sarfati for reasons known only to himself.220.245.180.133 08:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

(reducing indent) Beloved Angel (or messenger, to be more precise), you might want to stop obsessing over this — you're hurting your cause. Jim62sch 02:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Jim62sch, I don't know what you are up about, but did you have something to add to the discussion rather than a personal attack? agapetos_angel 00:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I've asked GregAsche to please review the situation. Instead of accusing me in the article's commentary, I requested Guettarda come to talk in the article and justify where she 'sees' sources that prevent that section from being original research (beyond links to the AiG website and True Origin, which do not) as requested in talk. Instead Guettarda accused me again (again in commentary) of whitewashing, and reverted the space I added (without changing content) to leave her the note (as she seems to be ignoring talk). Sources are still not present in that section to justify the "some critics" agapetos_angel 00:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Agapetos, if you feel that what I said was a personal attack you are very much mistaken. You obviously have a very clear POV, but you are engaging in edit-warring, which tends to result in editors dedicated to NPOV reverting your comments on sight. If you really feel that Sarfati is being misrepresented, you need to posit your arguments here, rather than engage in edit-wars. Additionally, you have asked Guettarda to discuss the issues on this page, you need to do the same rather than posting clearly POV edits. This is precisely what I meant by noting that you are hurting your cause. Jim62sch 02:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

How is it hurting any cause to insist that claims in articles must be "verifiable" according to every edit page here! How about providing sources as AA has asked for?220.245.180.134 04:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Jim, you are missing the point. I started this discussion. Please read this section to see who is discussing and who is not (which is why it smacked more of a personal attack on me). agapetos_angel 06:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I read all sections of a discussion before making a comment, thank you. I'm not clear precisely what this means, "who is discussing and who is not". As for the assertion re claims, did any of you (220.245.180.134, 220.245.180.133 or AA*) note the references, or if you did, did you simply reject them as they do not gibe with your opinion of Sarfati?

• These IP's are too close for coincidence and one wonders if there isn't some sock- or meat-puppetry at play here. Jim62sch 14:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

GregAsche declined to get involved for comment. Jim, perhaps you will review this with a more professional eye to who is discussing what, and who is simply pushing a POV with unsupported reverts and edits. Either way, I'll post it on the request for comment board. agapetos_angel 07:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

AA - you have yet to make any convincing argument for the whitewash. Please try actually addressing what Dunc had to say. Guettarda 07:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I addressed Dunc. He did not support his POV with sources. You have involved yourself without answering the points. agapetos_angel 08:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

What part of the section that you insist on deleting do you consider unverifiable? You have taken issue with the words "critics" and "supporters". The fact that they are not named does not justify wholesale deletion of the section. You take issue with "claims about arrogance" that are not in the section. Please explain what it is you take issue with. Nothing you have said warrants deletion of the section. Find something real - don't just repeat what others tell you to say. Guettarda 08:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

As you well know, it is not enough to say 'some critics' or 'some supporters' and Dunc's claim of something being well known without supporting sources is merely POV pushing. I took no issue with claims of arrogance; you confused me with another editor (again). Did you have any support? You have added nothing here aside from personal attacks of me; "don't just repeat what others tell you to say" adds nothing to the discussion. agapetos_angel 08:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You have yet to supply any reason which justifies deletion of the section - less than idea wording is not grounds for deletion. If you consider content to be unverifiable, given the original author a reasonable amount of time (a week or two) to supply a reference. But, you must first explain what it is you consider "unverifiable". Please explain what you consider unverifiable. Have you made any attempts to verify the material yourself? Obviously, if you find material which is not up to standard, the first thing you need to do is try to bring it up to standard. You can't delete otherwise accurate content simply because it lacks a citation. Guettarda 08:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It's called no original research and yes, it can/should be removed as it is all POV pushing. It is not up to me to show what I consider 'unverifiable', but rather the article should have the sources available per Misplaced Pages policy. If you have sources for the 'some critics' (as outlined above, there are three that I found right away that are unsupported assertions of various 'some critics'), then by all means please do supply them. Otherwise, stop the personal attacks and erroneous 'reverts'. The onus is on the one that posted the article to support it correctly; it's not up to me to do that for them. agapetos_angel 08:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

"If a statement can't stand on its own without weasel words, it lacks neutral point of view; either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed. Misplaced Pages:Avoid_weasel_words

So it is difficult to take Guettarda seriously for the claim "You can't delete otherwise accurate content simply because it lacks a citation." This of course is begging the question about whether it is accurate at all! The Wiki rule above clearly states that it is up to the claimant to prove it, otherwise it must go.220.245.180.133 09:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)