Misplaced Pages

Talk:Jonathan Sarfati: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:15, 30 January 2006 editAgapetos angel (talk | contribs)2,142 edits →Sentence 2← Previous edit Revision as of 23:18, 30 January 2006 edit undoJim62sch (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers23,810 edits →Personal AttacksNext edit →
Line 206: Line 206:


Additionally, if you really wish to discuss the article, do so rather than parroting Wiki rules (this goes for 220.245.180.134 and 220.245.180.133 as well). You argue, in essence that specifics are missing, and yet in so arguing you offer no substantive specifics yourself as to what precisely your objections are. ] 14:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC) Additionally, if you really wish to discuss the article, do so rather than parroting Wiki rules (this goes for 220.245.180.134 and 220.245.180.133 as well). You argue, in essence that specifics are missing, and yet in so arguing you offer no substantive specifics yourself as to what precisely your objections are. ] 14:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

: Do I really need to outline these? Telling someone that they are obsessive and/or obsessing, whinging with false accusations of sock puppetry ('whois' would have shown you that the anon 220 IP is from Melbourne), "don't just repeat what others tell you to say" are personal attacks (i.e., Ad Hominem) that add nothing to the conversation except a diversion from the issues at hand to focus on the person. "Comment on content, not on the contributor". I am not merely 'parroting Wiki rules', although that is a valid thing to do when confronted with misunderstanding. Why don't you, instead, show me where the rules have been followed. I have outlined the specifics several times, and shown how the rules support removal of weasel words (some critics) that are repeatively used, and the backbone of that entire section. Therefore, it is invalid to leave it in because it has no sourced substance. As I said before, "'''Critics and supporters of Sarfati often disagree'''" "'''Supporters would argue'''" "'''Thus, some critics find it reasonable'''" What (sourced) critics? What (sourced) supporters? This section fails ] and ]. ] about the weasel words, please, or in accordance with Misplaced Pages policy, it "lacks neutral point of view; either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed". If you cannot provide the sources, then it is to be removed until such time that someone does find the reputable sources. Content should remain after it is verified, not before. ] 18:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC) : Do I really need to outline these? Telling someone that they are obsessive and/or obsessing, whinging with false accusations of sock puppetry ('whois' would have shown you that the anon 220 IP is from Melbourne), "don't just repeat what others tell you to say" are personal attacks (i.e., Ad Hominem) that add nothing to the conversation except a diversion from the issues at hand to focus on the person. "Comment on content, not on the contributor". I am not merely 'parroting Wiki rules', although that is a valid thing to do when confronted with misunderstanding. Why don't you, instead, show me where the rules have been followed. I have outlined the specifics several times, and shown how the rules support removal of weasel words (some critics) that are repeatively used, and the backbone of that entire section. Therefore, it is invalid to leave it in because it has no sourced substance. As I said before, "'''Critics and supporters of Sarfati often disagree'''" "'''Supporters would argue'''" "'''Thus, some critics find it reasonable'''" What (sourced) critics? What (sourced) supporters? This section fails ] and ]. ] about the weasel words, please, or in accordance with Misplaced Pages policy, it "lacks neutral point of view; either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed". If you cannot provide the sources, then it is to be removed until such time that someone does find the reputable sources. Content should remain after it is verified, not before. ] 18:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

:::I also noted the possibility of meatpuppetry, a comment that was an observation, not an accusation -- read the words carefully. In any case, Melbourne is interesting for a number of reasons, and yet, as we do not have your IP, we do not know from where you are writing. In fact, IPs can be deceptive if the ISP is located somewhere other than the user. ] 23:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


::Jim62sch, you said (in comments) at 23:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC): "AA, if you have points, make them on the talk page, stop attempting to put your blatant POV onto the article. If edit-warring continues, the article will likely be locked". My points were made 11:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC), 21:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC), 00:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC), 01:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC), 00:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC), 08:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC), & 18:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC), before you ever posted that comment. You also haven't supplied anything more than complaints and requests for me to make points. How many times do I have to point out the weasel words and show that the section is original research and unsupported analysis of unsourced claims of critics and supporters? I have now made it once again in Talk (see above) and responded on your personal talk page so you won't miss it. ] 19:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC) ::Jim62sch, you said (in comments) at 23:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC): "AA, if you have points, make them on the talk page, stop attempting to put your blatant POV onto the article. If edit-warring continues, the article will likely be locked". My points were made 11:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC), 21:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC), 00:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC), 01:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC), 00:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC), 08:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC), & 18:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC), before you ever posted that comment. You also haven't supplied anything more than complaints and requests for me to make points. How many times do I have to point out the weasel words and show that the section is original research and unsupported analysis of unsourced claims of critics and supporters? I have now made it once again in Talk (see above) and responded on your personal talk page so you won't miss it. ] 19:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:18, 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)
To clarify, you said "you need to posit your arguments here" and I suggested you re-read to note that I was the one showing the reasons in Talk, while others were merely reverting without giving answer to why weasel words and original research should be allowed (i.e., who is actually doing the discussing, and who is not)agapetos_angel 18:28, 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)
There is a fundamental difference between unverified and unverifiable. Most of Misplaced Pages is (sadly) unverified. We need sources. But we also need content. Removed unverifiable material is appropriate - after making an exhaustive attempt to verify it, and after giving the original contributor a reasonable amount of time to verify it. In addition, most of the material you are removing has a source. So part of your assertion is simply false, and part of it is does not appear to be in the interest of the project and is incompatible with the idea of a cooperatively edited project. Guettarda 14:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Once again, Guettarda, where you say that "most of the material

Personal Attacks

AA, you seem to think that anything written that is not to your liking is a personal attack. In reading through the comments, I have seen nothing that qualifies as a personal attack. My experience with Guettarda indicates that he is likely the last person to engage in personal attacks. Merely claiming a personal attack does not make it so, and I doubt that any objective observer would agree with your assertion in this matter.

Additionally, if you really wish to discuss the article, do so rather than parroting Wiki rules (this goes for 220.245.180.134 and 220.245.180.133 as well). You argue, in essence that specifics are missing, and yet in so arguing you offer no substantive specifics yourself as to what precisely your objections are. Jim62sch 14:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Do I really need to outline these? Telling someone that they are obsessive and/or obsessing, whinging with false accusations of sock puppetry ('whois' would have shown you that the anon 220 IP is from Melbourne), "don't just repeat what others tell you to say" are personal attacks (i.e., Ad Hominem) that add nothing to the conversation except a diversion from the issues at hand to focus on the person. "Comment on content, not on the contributor". I am not merely 'parroting Wiki rules', although that is a valid thing to do when confronted with misunderstanding. Why don't you, instead, show me where the rules have been followed. I have outlined the specifics several times, and shown how the rules support removal of weasel words (some critics) that are repeatively used, and the backbone of that entire section. Therefore, it is invalid to leave it in because it has no sourced substance. As I said before, "Critics and supporters of Sarfati often disagree" "Supporters would argue" "Thus, some critics find it reasonable" What (sourced) critics? What (sourced) supporters? This section fails no original research and weasel words. Cite your sources about the weasel words, please, or in accordance with Misplaced Pages policy, it "lacks neutral point of view; either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed". If you cannot provide the sources, then it is to be removed until such time that someone does find the reputable sources. Content should remain after it is verified, not before. agapetos_angel 18:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I also noted the possibility of meatpuppetry, a comment that was an observation, not an accusation -- read the words carefully. In any case, Melbourne is interesting for a number of reasons, and yet, as we do not have your IP, we do not know from where you are writing. In fact, IPs can be deceptive if the ISP is located somewhere other than the user. Jim62sch 23:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Jim62sch, you said (in comments) at 23:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC): "AA, if you have points, make them on the talk page, stop attempting to put your blatant POV onto the article. If edit-warring continues, the article will likely be locked". My points were made 11:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC), 21:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC), 00:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC), 01:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC), 00:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC), 08:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC), & 18:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC), before you ever posted that comment. You also haven't supplied anything more than complaints and requests for me to make points. How many times do I have to point out the weasel words and show that the section is original research and unsupported analysis of unsourced claims of critics and supporters? I have now made it once again in Talk (see above) and responded on your personal talk page so you won't miss it. agapetos_angel 19:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, the current version you reverted to removes the supported NPOV that Sarfati is an editor and an author (with sourced links).agapetos_angel 19:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Agapetos angel, you may want to actually consider the difference between verified and verifiable and how that relates to Misplaced Pages's founding principle of collaborative contributing. Unilateral deleting of verifiable (note I didn't say "verified") content is going to viewed by other parties as you not collaborating to reach a reasonable consensus version. Done often enough and it's viewed as simple bowdlerizing. FeloniousMonk 19:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Felonious, I realize that there is a lot of text here in talk, and you may not have read it all, but how am I not trying to reach a reasonable collaboration? I posted my points for deleting the text over and over again, and one editor blocked me in conflict of interest and without proper reason, and the other two editors keep saying they can't see where I have made my points, regardless of a dozen or so repetitions of them. Collaborative concensus cannot be achieved when one side resorts to bullying techniques and refused (before mediation was requested) to discuss the actual issues. agapetos_angel 20:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Mediation requested

I have requested mediation, believing that agreement cannot be reached when one side continually accuses and fails to see plainly posted points, rather than discussing the matters openly and with a mind to compromise. agapetos_angel 19:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Agapetos angel, mediation is not going to enforce any particular version of the the content. And mediation should be sought only after genuine efforts at reaching consensus fail. You should try to compromise and reach consensus here first. FeloniousMonk 19:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I have tried (see above). For my efforts, I have been erroneously blocked by an editor with a conflict of interest, (mildly) attacked personally, and my explained points for deletion of that section have been ignored, regardless of the repetition of them. agapetos_angel 20:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Contested material

Since AA refuses to explain his/her rationale for removing the material (as opposed to asking for a citation), I have broken down the section sentance-by-sentance for discussion. Please explain what it is that makes you believe that the material in the section is unverifiable. What efforts have you made to verify the material prior to deleting it? The simple fact that the material is unsourced is obviously not the issue here, since there is lots of other unsourced information in the article, and throughout Misplaced Pages. While it is reasonable to expect that sources be provided, it is not reasonable to remove material simply because it is unsourced. In addition, much of the material that you are removing is already sourced, so that rationale cannot hold for the entire deletion. Guettarda 19:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Finally. I'd be happy to point out, one last time, where the weasel words exist. I will not, however, be subject to multiple choice that gives the equivalent of 'when did you stop beating your wife'. As I said before, unverified/unverifiable, it's not my duty to do so. It is up to an editor to replace the weasel words, removed the original research, and source the critical statements before reinstalling the text. Perhaps, Guettarda, you'd like to illustrate how weasel worded statements can be verified. They are unverifiable by their very definition. agapetos_angel 20:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
You have insisted on deletion of the content on the grounds that it is unverified. What evidence do you have that the material is false or unverifiable'? Why do you feel that it must be deleted instead of being referenced or refactored? It is your duty to attempt to verify material before removing it unless you are certain that it is unverifiable or false. Yet you refuse to support your campaign for immediate removal with any evidence. It is false to say that the burden is not on you - as the editor insisting on immediate deletion, the burden most certainly is on you. As a participant in this project, you need to make a good-faith attempt to verify material before declaring it unverifiable. Guettarda 21:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I have insisted on deletion of the content on the grounds that it is unsupported assertations, invalid weasel statements, original research, redundant information, and isolated quotes (when the weasel statements are removed). I don't believe I ever said that the grounds were because it is false (which is not a wikipedia standard, alas). That is a strawman of my point. Please show how weasel worded statements can be verified. Some people, a few people, many people may actually feel/think/act a certain way, but it doesn't make it verifiable, and the weasel word policy is in place for that very reason. It is that policy that the statements should be removed. It is not my problem if you have issue with standing policy. agapetos_angel 21:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Sentence 1

  • Critics and supporters of Sarfati often disagree whether he should be considered a scientist.
If that were the case, then you would have asked for sources, as opposed to immediately and repeatedly deleting the material. Do you have some reason to believe that the statement is false or unverifiable? Guettarda 21:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Again, 'critics and supporters' are weasel words. What critics? What supporters? Where have they disagreed (beyond original research)? agapetos_angel 21:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Sentence 2

The statement is "common knowledge" and is covered in several other articles. It's obviously neither false nor unverifiable. So why do you want it deleted? Guettarda 21:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
The fact remains that the assertion is unsupported and has nothing to do with the Sarfati article. agapetos_angel 21:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Of course it is has something to do with the Sarfati article. Sarfati is YEC. Everything he does is about Young Earth Creationism. And incidentally, classifying YEC as a pseudoscience is an issue that has been discussed before on other wiki pages. The current consensus is that is it listed as such. If you have a problem with this general issue then maybe it should be discussed on the talk page for Young Earth Creationism? ---posted by JoshuaZ ---
The Sarfati article already states that he is YEC, and YEC is linked to the YEC article where similar statements about pseudoscience abound. Without the other invalid statements in the disputed section, that sentence standing alone has no bearing on the Sarfati article.. agapetos_angel 21:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm somewhat new to Misplaced Pages, so maybe I am missing something here. My impression is that many articles have a relevant one or two sentence summary of some issue or how it relates to some issue even if a linking article discusses the matter in more detail. Traditional encyclopediae also do this. Is there some reason this sentence doesn't fall into this category? JoshuaZ 21:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
No problem, Joshua. I'd suggest reviewing wikipedia:no original research for reasons why policy does not allow "unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments ". The 'summary' is unnecessary, especially as the other material is invalid. agapetos_angel 22:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, now I'm seriously confused. You just said right above that the issue here is that "that sentence standing alone has no bearing on the Sarfati article" and I observed that the sentence is in the relevant category of giving a summary of an important detail which is in a linking article. How is that original research? JoshuaZ 22:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
In the context in which is was used. It was not used to summarize the YEC position that Sarfati holds, but rather as a springboard for other bald assertions in a section filled with weasel words. As such, it is used as original research. agapetos_angel 22:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Let me see if I understand. Your objection to Sentence 2 is within the larger context of the section? So it is not that the sentence constitutes original research but that the section includes original research and this sentence is only there as part of the section and doesn't stand on its own? Am I understanding you correctly? JoshuaZ 22:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Let me see if I can clarify. The section in dispute is filled with original research and weasel words. Guettarda separated each section to ascertain objection (even though I had already fully documented it already numerous times). In the interest of resolve, I responded to each point multiple times. Again, the section in its entire construct is in dispute because it is built on the back of unsupported assertations (of which this is one), original research (of which this applies in its current usage), and weasel statements. If you remove all that is wrongly formatted about the section, this sentence stands alone with some random quotes. My personal POV on this statement on it's own merit is not valid to the discussion, and as I mentioned, I have no interest in rabbit-trailing into a POV argument between what is science and what is pseudoscience. That is not the objective of resolving this dispute. agapetos_angel 23:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Sentence 3

  • Supporters would argue that he has a doctorate in physical chemistry and has published in undisputed scientific journals, so is a scientist.
You are insisting it must be deleted immediately. Please explain why you think so. Is it false, or unverifiable? Guettarda 21:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
"When did you stop beating your wife"? This sort of either/or questioning is fallacious. As I said, 'Supporters' is a weasel word (what supporters?), and saying he has a doctorate and is published in this section is unnecessary as it is redundant to other sections in the article. Please don't assert a lack of explanation when I've provided one. agapetos_angel 21:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC) (NB, FeloniousMonk changed the formatting of my replies, and as such, I'll allow the benefit of the doubt that you may have missed the answer)
Well, since the only people more extreme than AiG are the Flat Earth Society, it's fairly obvious that "supporters" means fellow YECists whereas "opponents" means those more on the scientific side of him. This includes Hugh Ross of course, but given he promotes a slighlty different brand of pseudoscience, but given his extreme minority, "opponents" means particularly mainstream science, which includes plenty of Christian scientists. That much is extremely obvious, unless you pretend you don't realise this because you want the mainstream view to be suppressed. Oh and who can't spell sentence? — Dunc|☺ 21:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
POV pushing doesn't equal valid article material. 'Supporters' is a weasel word, and saying he has a doctorate and is published in this section is unnecessary as it is redundant to other sections in the article. agapetos_angel 21:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Well he hasn't published any papers supporting YECism in journals. That is a fundamental part of the scientific method. Why is it that he hasn't published any papers on YECism? — Dunc|☺ 21:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
At the risk of being slightly Devil's Advocatey, many YEC's and IDers claim that the mainstream journals shut them out. Also, AiG claims that their Technical Journal constitutes a reasonable peer reviewed journal. JoshuaZ 22:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
And what does that have to do with the discussion on why this is an invalid statement based on use of weasel words and unsupported assertions that do not negate a charge of original research? agapetos_angel 22:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Sentence 4

Do you have any reason to believe that it is original research? Please give some positive evidence why you insist that it must be immediately deleted from the article. Guettarda 21:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Original research policy is self-explanatory. This is a bald statement asserted as fact. Where is this an issue? Who made that statement? agapetos_angel 21:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
This is a well known issue with pseudoscience. If you really insist, I'll track down a formal source. However, I think this is well known enough that it is clearly not an issue. JoshuaZ 21:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
It is necessary to show a source regarding this issue pertaining to Sarfati to show that this is not original research. agapetos_angel 21:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
This sentence talks about a general issue, why would it need to be directly pertaining to Sarfati? Incidentally, do you believe that this is not a question that is frequently discussed about defining pseudoscience and pseudoscientists? JoshuaZ 21:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
That's a good point, Joshua. And as such, why does that general issue belong in Sarfati's article then? Especially if the other invalid statements are removed? agapetos_angel 21:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
See my above comment about how entries are frequently constructed. Also, I'm still curious as to your opinion about my second question here. JoshuaZ 21:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
My opinion (i.e., POV) is not valid to any constructive discussion about the disputed section. I'd rather not rabbit trail, if you don't mind. agapetos_angel 22:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't make why I was asking the question clearer or possibly my phrasing was bad. Second attempt: There are statements which do not need references (for example, "the sky is blue") Do you think that the claim that the issue (of) whether one can be a scientist in some domains of work even if one advocates an ostensibly non-scientific position in others is sufficiently well known as an issue such that it does not require a reference? JoshuaZ 22:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
(<---- serious colon problem, lol) 'Well-known' is relative to usage, Joshua. The sky is blue might be a valid statement in a section about sky color observation, but is it a valid point when used in an article about (so-called) global warming? Context is king, and when something is in the middle of invalid assertions, it is best that it is sourced to prevent a complaint of it being original research. How something is used is as important as what it says. For another example, it is a fact that Dobson did not take a salary for his 27 years as head of Focus on the Family. I think that is a valid point in contrast with a discussion about another religious nonprofit CEO's salary; another editor may not think so. To simply assert that fact would not be appropriate. It has to be sourced (so it can be verfied), and its relevance to the article it's posted in has to be supported. Furthermore, just because something is well-known, does that mean that it's valid or even factual all the time? Is it a valid statement in the midst of a thunderstorm {black sky}, a cloudy day {white sky}, or a sunrise/sunset {multi-coloured sky}? What if you are standing on the moon and your POV became relevant to that reference frame? It's important not to make generalizations. To discuss Sarfati directly in his article is the goal; not to make vague generalizations that may or may not apply to him. agapetos_angel 22:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Sentence 5

  • However, the young Earth creationist site Answers in Genesis lists many creationists who are active in science (though many for work unconnected to creationism), and points out that many of the founders of modern science, such as Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle and Michael Faraday were biblical creationists , though Darwinian theory was not seriously developed until after all of the preceding had died.
    • Is this material not at the cited link? Do you dispute that Newton, Boyle and Faraday lived before the development of Darwinian theory? Guettarda 19:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Content is supported by the link. Seems fine. FeloniousMonk 19:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Sentence 5, although sourced, rests on the backbone of the weasel words in the other sentences. Perhaps appropriate for the AiG article (or the Newton, Boyle and Faraday articles), it does not stand alone here when the other invalid statements are removed, and has nothing to do with the article about Sarfati. agapetos_angel 20:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Do you have any reason to believe that it is original research? Please give some positive evidence why you insist that it must be immediately deleted from the article. Guettarda 21:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Please refer to my already posted answer: (Sentence 5, although sourced, rests on the backbone of the weasel words in the other sentences. Perhaps appropriate for the AiG article (or the Newton, Boyle and Faraday articles), it does not stand alone here when the other invalid statements are removed, and has nothing to do with the article about Sarfati.) agapetos_angel 21:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Sentence 6

  • In response, Sarfati has argued that in reality evolutionary ideas date back at least to Greek philosophers, and these scientists were well aware of them.
It follows immediately from the previous cited material. Why do you believe that is must be deleted immediately? Guettarda 21:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Cited material does not equal relevant material. If you remove the backbone of weasel statement, the house of cards falls and this sentence does not stand alone. agapetos_angel 21:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Sentence 7

It follows immediately from the previous cited material. Why do you believe that is must be deleted immediately? Guettarda 21:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
This is redundant. Redundancy should be deleted, immediately or nearly immediately, to avoid cluttered articles. agapetos_angel 21:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Sentence 8

  • Thus, some critics find it reasonable to question his knowledge in apparently unrelated fields- namely the creationist perspective in biology and astronomy.
Do you have any reason to believe that it is original research? Please give some positive evidence why you insist that it must be immediately deleted from the article. Guettarda 21:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I think this is sourced enough as is, but any event, here is a source that is relevant to this point and a few other sentences: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/supernova/sarfati.html Agapetos, would it satisfy you if this link were added after this sentence? JoshuaZ 21:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
The link may be valid to a pre-existing synthesis, but the sentence would also need to be reworded to remove weasel words. "Some critics" could be changed, for example, to "Talk Origin author X stated ...". agapetos_angel 21:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
So if I understand you, in order to use "some " we must link to at least n {\displaystyle n} sources for some n > 1 {\displaystyle n>1} ? At this risk of being impolite, that's ridiculous. What value of n {\displaystyle n} is acceptable? n = 2 {\displaystyle n=2} ? n = 6 {\displaystyle n=6} ? JoshuaZ 21:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
It may be ridiculous to you, but it is wikipedia policy regarding weasel words (like 'some'). agapetos_angel 21:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
So under your interpretation of the wikipedia guidelines, what number is the minimum acceptable number? JoshuaZ 21:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Please review the policy here. It suggests ways to revise weasel statements to acceptable (by policy) standards agapetos_angel 21:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Sentence 9

It follows immediately from the previous cited material. Why do you believe that is must be deleted immediately? Guettarda 21:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Again, what relevance does this isolated statement have when the weasel worded statements are removed. Why do you believe it should remain? What relevance does it have to the Sarfati article? As I pointed out above, Sarfati has said heaps of stuff. Not all of it should be posted in a concise, encyclopedic article. agapetos_angel 21:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Sentence 10+

  • In addition, Sarfati has written: "We have always tried to avoid saying or implying ‘believe me because I’m a scientist trained in such and such a field’, therefore we were not guilty of this fallacy. Rather, we try to rely on the strengths of our arguments, the soundness or unsoundness of which are independent of who is making them. Hopefully, the only time we appeal to our qualifications is defensively, to refute the charge that ‘no intelligent person/no real scientist believes creation/doubts goo-to-you evolution, or to point out to ‘professional biologists’ resorting to that fallacy that we also have ‘professional biologists’ on staff. "


It follows immediately from the previous cited material. Why do you believe that is must be deleted immediately? Guettarda 21:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I have answered each point, which is a lengthy (and I believe unnecessary) effort to reiterate what I've said in talk numerous times. I hope all this work will not again go to waste. agapetos_angel 20:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Nope, you have not made any attempt to explain why you insist that this material must be immediately deleted from the article without giving the original author a reasonable amount to time to source/refactor the content. You have failed to address the only germane question - why do you feel that the material must be deleted immediately? Guettarda 21:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Guettarda, I'm sorry if you feel that way. I have responded to each of your points, albeit not in the way you assume I must (some of your either/or choices left out the correct response). Unsupported assertations, invalid weasel statements, original research, redundant information, and isolated quotes (when the weasel statements are removed) have no place in an encyclopedic article. Until they are supported, they should be removed for those very reasons (as I showed you before from the definitions of policy). It's not like that text can't be obtained from the archived history. Just because you assert that the only germane question is ... doesn't make it so, I'm sorry to say. The main point is that the section does not conform to Misplaced Pages standards, and as such should be appropriately edited, or removed until such time that it can be. agapetos_angel 21:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
If you are sorry I feel that way, why have you repeatedly ignored the relevant question? Guettarda 22:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
From wikipedia:avoid weasel words: "Weasel words don't really give a neutral point of view; they just spread hearsay, or couch personal opinion in vague, indirect syntax. It's better to put a name and a face on an opinion than to assign an opinion to an anonymous source." Until such time that the weasely worded statements are revised, I maintain that they should be deleted as inappropriate content. agapetos_angel 22:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Possible Reference?

I would have just dropped this reference in, but given the current conflict over the page, I will just put it here: http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?storyid=2375 This is also possibly relevant to the general issues with Sarfati's comparisons of various people to Nazis. Thoughts? JoshuaZ 21:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Properly formated (using sources rather than weasel words and assertions), this is a valid source for his views on Nazis, I feel. It is my (POV--laugh) opinion that many Jews (Poles, etc.) feel strongly about the history of the Holocaust and Nazis, and it might be valid to find more information and tie it into his Jewish background. agapetos_angel 21:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Ironicaly it seem from all this discussion that the most formalised rebuttals of Sarfati come from OEC Christians. Apparently he has been largely ignored by 'mainstream' science. This is a sure sign that they cannot address his arguments. David D. (Talk) 22:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, David, you draw an incorrect inferrence. Sarfati is ignored not because his arguments cannot be refuted (the average 9th grader could refute his arguments) but rather because they are not science and because few scientists feel a need to refute that which is clearly nonsense lest they lend it more credibility than it deserves. Jim62sch 23:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Weasel Word box

Why was this box removed? It is valid to add that box when there is a dispute, and there is no reason for it to have been removed that I can see in policy. Adding it back with note to see this message. It seems like reverts are being done just for the sake of reverting. "The weasel template can be added to the top of an article or section to bring attention to an article or section that has many weasel words." agapetos_angel 22:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Please define which words you feel are weasel words and why you feel that they are weasel words. Thank you for your cooperation. Jim62sch 23:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Shown above ad nauseam ('some critics', 'some supporters', etc.) and examples of how this is against policy is shown here: . You're very welcome. Now please reinstate the box for the section that includes weasel words. agapetos_angel 23:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Some is not a weasel word. Why precisely do you feel that it is? Jim62sch 23:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)