Misplaced Pages

Talk:Jonathan Sarfati/dispute

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.
< Talk:Jonathan Sarfati

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Agapetos angel (talk | contribs) at 09:42, 16 February 2006 (→D4). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 09:42, 16 February 2006 by Agapetos angel (talk | contribs) (→D4)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This page has been set up to discuss material that User:agapetos_angel would like to add to, or delete from, Jonathan Sarfati and related articles.

AA, if you would like to try this, please write out a very specific list of the precise sentences (please be very precise) you want to add to the article, and link to (or give a citation for) your source. Similarly, list the sentences that are currently in the article that you want to remove, and say exactly why.

It would be helpful not to go over what other editors have said in the past, because it makes the issue too complex for those of us not familiar with the background.

If you provide that list, I'm willing to go through it and give an opinion as to whether the additions/omissions seem acceptable and whether they conform with our editing policies. Cheers, SlimVirgin 01:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Others

  1. "Sarfati is widely believed to be responsible for the theologyweb internet troll "Socrates".
It is very poor form for anyone, and even poorer form for admins, to keep adding this, although this claim was first inserted by a troll and rejected in Talk:Jonathan Sarfati/archive1#Unsupported allegation removed. Note also, "it is widely believed" are weasel words expressly verboten by the rules, and there is no acceptable source, as opposed to internet rumour-mongering. (an unsigned comment from User:220.245.180.133 --FeloniousMonk)
Any editor may challenge any edit by asking for a credible, published source. In the case of an Internet troll, it's not clear what a credible, published source would amount to (the New York Times has probably not written about it), so my inclination would be to remove the claim. SlimVirgin 00:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
While I'm inclined to agree for now, there must be some standard where such information could be included. Your argument leads to a general inability to talk about specific internet trolls on Misplaced Pages. (Incidentally, I'm attempting to find out more about the Socartes claim, but so far have found very little that is reliable). JoshuaZ 01:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
From talkorigins.org: Dr. Sarfati posts at TheologyWeb under the screen name "Socrates" with the habit of referring to himself in the third person. Good enough? Guettarda 01:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't know anything about the website, Guettarda, or who Dave Moore is. The benchmark for what counts as a credible source is whether there is any form of third-party fact checking or editing, as there is with a newspaper or a book publisher. If there isn't, the website counts as a self-published source, and may be used as a source of information about itself, but may not be used as a third-party source i.e. as a source of information about anyone else. See WP:V. SlimVirgin 02:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Slim, lists talkorigis.org myriad awards and acknowledgements. They are pretty reliable. JoshuaZ 03:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Joshua. It seems it's a Usenet newsgroup, which means we can't use it as a source. See WP:RS#Bulletin_boards_and_posts_to_Usenet. SlimVirgin 03:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
talk.origins is a usenet group. talkorigins.org is an organization which has some connections to the usenet group. However, the talkorigins.org is respected(as should be obvious from some of the awards). JoshuaZ 03:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
PS - the text in question does not allege that he is Socrates, just that he is believed ot be Socrates. Guettarda 01:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Good enough for me, although I'm curious as to why talkorigins.org is convinced of this. JoshuaZ 01:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Probably because Socrates' profile on theology web (registration required) describes him as follows:
Location: Australia
Interests: Creation, apologetics
Occupation: Scientist
Guettarda 02:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, that is hardly convincing. On the internet people claiming to be scientists seem to be quite common. More interestingly if you look at the writing style of Socrates, it is very similar to Sarfati which is very similar to 220.*. Hmm...
We've moved very far off of what this page is supposed to be for, mainly because of me. I apologize for that. Similarities in writing style of the three should probably be moved to the main talk page. JoshuaZ 02:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, this has moved a bit off. Talk.Origins is most variable in quality, and the sourced comment is stating a rumour as if it were a fact. Wiki should concentrate on facts not rumours.220.245.180.133 08:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

OK

SV, I still disagree with this, but I'll try it your way. I am addressing below the version as it stands right now: 02:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

See below agapetos_angel 02:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate my points not been hacked up by other editors, asking contributions to the discussion be made at the end of the section under a separate subheader. Thanks agapetos_angel 03:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, AA. I'll take a look tonight and tomorrow. SlimVirgin 03:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I've done 4, for now, with notes at the bottom for other things I want to address. I am requesting those be left alone so that I can come back to them later. agapetos_angel

1

Sarfati has had papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals (Abstracts available on ScienceDirect.com).

  • Comment: While in the current version, removal was attempted. Abstracts are linked, confirming AiG bio. Each journal on the list was linked in Talk to show that articles are peer-reviewed. Abstracts from reputable source (sciencedirect) shows all are articles. A-->B, therefore, all are peer reviewed.
    • Recommend: Retention
      • Justification: Meets WP:V

D1

Discussion regarding # 1:

That seems fine to me. Pulling out two of those articles, they are (1) "Tetraphosphorus tetraselenide: crystalline and amorphous phases analysed by X-ray diffraction, Raman and magic angle spinning 31P NMR spectroscopy and differential scanning calorimetry", by Jonathan D. Sarfati, Gary R. Burns and Keith R. Morgan in Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, Volume 188, Issues 1-2, 2 July 1995, Pages 93-97, and (2) "The pressure, temperature and excitation frequency dependent Raman spectra; and infrared spectra of CuBrSe3 and CuISe3", by Jonathan D. Sarfati and Gary R. Burns, in Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular Spectroscopy, Volume 50, Issue 12, November 1994, Pages 2125-2136. Their existence means it's verified that he has had papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. SlimVirgin 03:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Also fine with this. JoshuaZ 03:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I've not been involved with this so far, but I think this problem could be reduced by being more specific. "Sarfati has had papers on Spectroscopy published in peer-reviewed scientific journals..." or maybe even the slightly less precise, but much more common and readable: "Sarfati has published papers on Spectroscopy in peer-reviewed scientific journals...". --Stephan Schulz 08:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

2

He also co-authored a "Letters to Nature" submission on high-temperature superconductors which appeared in 1987 in the journal Nature, when he was 22. (PDF file)

  • Comment: Minor issue on this; 'submission ... which appeared in 1987' reduces this from publication to appearing to be more like a letter to the editor.
    • Recommend: Modification
    • Alternative Recommendation: Removal with links to PDF and abstract under a new 'Resources' section (or similar title) which would include the AiG source links that I'll address further later. This would ultimately resolve any dispute over whether the guidelines for submission of 'Letters' were different in 1987.
      • Justification: Meets WP:V and NPOV (and MoS ?)

D2

Discussion regarding # 2:

One quick point (more will follow when I have time.) It is highly unecessary and slightly POVy to mention his age their (the phrasing makes it sound like that was a big deal, which imo, it isn't.) JoshuaZ 05:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Publishing in those journals is notable NPOV because of the emphasis on YEC in the article; age is not necessary. agapetos_angel 05:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
You're probably right. But I recall something in Australasian Science a while back where much was made of a woman who had a paper published in Nature aged 25.220.245.180.133 08:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I see no problem in adjusting the wording. These are indeed letters to the editor, so far as I'm aware, but having a letter to the editor published in Nature is not like having one published in The Times. The former is more prestigious and I think people realize that. I would agree with leaving out the age. SlimVirgin 07:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
This is I think this is my wording, but I don't propose to fight to the death for every comma. I don't think they're letters to the editor, but they are indeed called "Letters to Nature". I think the qualification is important as it's not the same as a full-length pub in Nature. "Submission" simply to avoid rep'n of the word "paper", used in the sentence immediately before. Otherwise I don't see what's "reducing" in this. I agree mentioning his age seems unnecessary, people can do the maths. Alai 07:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Letters to peer-reviewed journals often take the form of mini-papers. I just looked up what it costs to buy a Letter to Nature, and it's $30, the same as for any other paper. SlimVirgin 07:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Mini-papers to journals often are called "letters" (as in this case), but to describe them as "letters to the editor" would be misleading. The cost of "buying"(!) one category or other of pub does not necessarily equate to the difficulty (or cachet) of being accepted in that category. Alai 08:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
(edit clash with Alai) I've mentioned this before (lost in the talk page), but I do not think there is too much difference between a full length publication (article) and a letter to nature (not to be confusd with correspondance). Both are prestigious. There are usually one or two articles in each issue as opposed to about ten to fifteen letters. A letter is the norm and not really a 'mini-paper'. the mini-papers are called 'communication' or 'brevia', I forget which. David D. (Talk) 08:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Alai that price has nothing to do with quality or prestige in the same way that word count does not. David D. (Talk) 08:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
(clash with previous editors) The change to 'submission ... appeared' was used to indicate, IIRC, that the paper might not have been peer-reviewed. However, Letters to Nature are peer-reviewed as a rule ("The following types of contribution to Nature are peer reviewed: ... Letters ...") agapetos_angel 08:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of any of the points above, a submission of some kind (letter, mini-paper) was published, so there's no harm in using the word "published." SlimVirgin 08:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Re: AA, Someone doubts it was peer reviewed? We need to keep this simple. All these clarifications bog down the whole article. Some things are just a given,
He has been published in Nature.
He has had a paper published in Nature.
Neither should be seen as false advertising. David D. (Talk) 08:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Let me find the reference in Talk, but yes, I think that was the objection and reason given for the change. agapetos_angel 08:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
The only valid negative point would be that he is a minor author, 3rd or 4th (I don't remember exactly), but that would be nitpicking to the extreme. David D. (Talk) 08:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

(ri)Found it. FM stated 'Not all "Letters to Nature" are peer reviewed' and linked here. I don't see anything in that section that conflicts with this that states they are peer-reviewed. I think the only reason they would not be peer-reviewed would be the obvious one, the paper was rejected. agapetos_angel 08:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not true (FM's comment). ALL published papers in nature are peer reviewed. David D. (Talk) 08:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Right. Just found where FM's objection is refuted further down that same source ("All Articles and Letters published in Nature go through at least one round of review, usually two or three, sometimes more.")agapetos_angel 08:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

(rri&ec)AA, the word "submission" was used, by me, for the reasons I give above (and no others), and doesn't carry for me the connotation you claim, even in hindsight. I've no objection to "paper" or "publication" (other than where it rises to grating-on-the-ear repetition). None of this should be a big deal either way, however, it's all at the "average college prof" level of notability. Alai 08:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, all this argument obscures the fact that many people have published in nature. However, it does give credability to the claim he had an authentic training as a scientist. Something that I would have doubted before seeing his publication record due to the many shady credentials that are bandied about by other creationists. David D. (Talk) 08:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I suppose another point I would make is that it's a little odd to mention a minor paper (letter, whatever) to Nature that was published in 1987. Adding it to his bibliography is fine, but to mention it in the body of the text looks like a slightly miguided effort to expand scientific credentials. However, that's just my personal feeling. In terms of our content policies, there's no problem with including it. SlimVirgin 08:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
DD, I'd have liked to think that was covered by his formal academic credentials, though given the stink about Dodgy Doctorates elsewhere, you may be correct in saying that some clarification and emphasis is unwarranted. At any rate, when i say it's not a big deal either way, I don't mean it shouldn't be mentioned, just that it shouldn't end up either horrendously caveated and qualified, or unduly hyped. Alai 09:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
(another edit clash) No insult intended, Alai. I couldn't remember in all the recent fuss who attached which particular wording. I was merely trying to address that the objection was invalid. Also, since YEC is being used in the intro, and the overall argument made in the Scientist section, was to purport that creationists are not real scientists. While there are fakes all over the internet (in every field, I suppose), mention is notable for that reason alone. If there is no problem with including it, and it is verifiable, and notable for the reasons I mention, then I recommend (a version of) the suggestion remains. Agree that it should not be blown out of proportion. agapetos_angel 09:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
It might be worth mentioning that talk pages are cached by Google just as articles are, so it's best not to raise issues here that could be interpreted as belittling anyone unnecessarily. He has a PhD from a good university, which means his scholarly credentials are not in doubt. SlimVirgin 09:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Unintended. I was attributing, not belittling, the source of the objection. Changed agapetos_angel 09:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

3

Sarfati is married with one stepson.

  • Comment: Attempts made to change do not meet policy
    • Recommend: Retain above version (source)
      • Justification: Change violates Misplaced Pages:No original research, namely 'material added to articles by Misplaced Pages editors that has not been published already by a reputable source'
        • Reasons given: for inclusion appear to be that an editor 'found' it
          • Objection: not linked to subject of article
      • Justification: Change violates Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources
        • Reasons given: are not readily apparent
          • Objection: "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Submission to that source is a fill-in web form with no indication that the facts are checked or accurate. Credibility is not met (and in fact, suspect because cache shows recent change of information)

D3

Discussion regarding # 3:

  • I would agree with removing the wife's name, regardless of how good the source is. It adds nothing to the article, which is not about her, unless it can be shown that she is in some way notable in relation to him, or in her own right. But as there has been an objection, I'd say leave it out in accordance with WP:LIVING. SlimVirgin 07:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

4

Critics and supporters of Sarfati often disagree whether he should be considered a scientist. Young Earth Creationism is considered a pseudoscience by almost all scientists. Supporters argue that his doctorate in physical chemistry qualifies him as a scientist. The creationist website Answers in Genesis to which Sarfati contributes lists many creationists who are active in science (though for work unconnected to creationism), and advises readers that many of the founders of modern science, such as Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell had a general belief in the creator God of the Bible and opposed evolution. A point critics reject as invalid since evolutionary theory was not developed until after many of those listed had died. Sarfati suggests that evolutionary ideas date back at least to Greek philosophers, and these scientists were well aware of them . His view is not widely shared in the scientific community. and these earlier evolutionary ideas were very different from the modern theory. Sarfati's doctorate is in physical chemistry. Some critics question his knowledge in apparently unrelated fields- namely biology and astronomy.

  • Comment: Section is a complex, unverifiable mess as it now stands. Have previously recapped objection but will repeat if deemed necessary.
    • Recommend: Removal until revised to meet WP:V
      • Justification: (1) 'The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it'
      • Justification: (2) '... unless the article or information is about a living person, in which case remove the unsourced information'
        • Reasons given: for inclusion appear to vary, but main reason seems to be assertion that sources within the section support the statements as given.
          • Objection: Weasel words and unsourced/unattributed statements are unverifiable, and violate WP:OR because they are editor opinion rather than attributed statements (and WP:NPOV appears violated for the same reason).
            • Additional Comment: Sources within a section does not equal sources that support the section in entirety. Note (again) that I am not objecting to inclusion of similar statements, but that they have to not violate policy.

D4

Discussion regarding # 4:

I'm inclined to have a slight agreement with Agapetos here. I suggested a revised version earlier which Agapetos rejected, making a number of suggestions and requests. I hope to have a draft which deals with those issues by sometime this Friday. JoshuaZ 04:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Joshua, I don't know if you meant to imply that I rejected it outright. I said, 'I think it was a good attempt, but still needs work'. I don't want to get into a he said/she said. But I must point out that my objective was always to have the OR removed and the section meet WP:V. I was willing to work with you on the revisions, including suggestions I already gave you on how to proceed from your draft (paragraph that begins "Why the use of 'some critics' (weasel) when you have names?" ) agapetos_angel 04:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I didn't mean to imply that you had rejected it outright. That was poor phrasing on my part. Sorry. JoshuaZ 04:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay. No worries. agapetos_angel 05:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
The section violates WP:NOR in that it is an unsourced argument. Even if sources could be found for each individual point, the overall thrust of the argument might have to be sourced too, because NOR prohibits the publication of any unpublished synthesis of ideas, where the synthesis is used to advance a particular position. In other words, it would be safer to find someone who had actually made that particular overall point and attribute the position to them, rather than to find sources for each individual part of the argument. Joshua, I suppose it depends on what your sources say. SlimVirgin 07:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I disagree that this rises to OR; I agree on the weaselly wording and lack of an explicit source. How notable any of his various critics that have levelled such charges, may also be an issue. Alai 08:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Given that a position is being advanced without sources, the paragraph does indeed rise to OR by definition. SlimVirgin 08:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
No, OR means that no appropriate primary sources exist, not that they've not been cited. By your definition, 99.9% of wikipedia is "original research". Which is not to say that they shouldn't be cited, which clearly, they should. Alai 08:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
That's not what it means, Alai. If that were the case, we could never call anything OR, because it is never possible to prove that no sources for a particular position exist. All we can do is note that no sources have been produced. Advancing a position without producing sources is to engage in original research. SlimVirgin 08:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

(ri) That's where I was going with this, SV. The overall section is making the argument that can be reduced to creation science isn't science, ergo a creationist can't be a scientist. It's a faulty premise that I don't want to argue here, keeping to the point that the section is unverifiable as written. The section would have to attribute specific Argument X to specific Critic X and specific Supporter X with reliable sources. As it stands, it just gives an argument and uses weasel words in the supporting statements, with sources thrown in that don't meet WP:V. agapetos_angel 09:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

No it would not, since absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence, if one has troubled to look for the evidence. But isn't, if one has not. Advancing a position without sources isn't verifying that one isn't engaging in OR, but is not in itself determinative that one is. Otherwise, as I say, we'd have to delete 99.9% of WP as being in violation of policy (and ban approximately 100% of the editors for doing so). The distinction is worth making, as OR is often cited (as in this case) for peremptory deletion of poorly sourced/weasel-worded material, as opposed to more systematic reworking of it. At any rate, I must cease splitting hairs and get some sleep, and in any case I'm happy to wait on JZ's offer of redraft in the hopes it's more directly sourced. Alai 09:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I know what you mean, and take your point, but the problem is that this section, or versions of it, have been in the article for months without sources. As soon as a source request was made, it needed either to be sourced or deleted. Just because something can be reworked and sourced so that it's no longer OR, doesn't mean it wasn't OR to begin with, and to distinguish OR from material that is merely unsourced would lead to difficult (and, in fact, irrelevant) questions. If I were to say: "R.M Hare was the kind of professor who made even the humblest of his students feel they had mastered the topic," is this OR or is it simply unsourced? The question is not answerable until a source is found, which means, according to your argument, that we could never definitively declare something to be OR, given that a source could be found at any minute. The point is that when an editor publishes an argument on Misplaced Pages without first checking that the argument has already been published by a reputable source, then s/he is engaging by definition in original research, even if a published source is later found. But regardless, whether we want to say that the section in question is a violation of NOR or just a violation of V, it's unquestionably a violation of something. SlimVirgin 09:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
AA, that's a pretty inaccurate summary in many, many respects. But to confine myself to just one for now: your counterargument here is essentially that, yes, many critics of JS do make this criticism, but you wish to rule them out as themselves being insufficiently notable, and/or on the grounds of the medium of the criticism. Alai 09:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
No. Where did I say or indicate anything about ruling anyone out? I was pointing out that it's not enought to assert that someone somewhere said something; it has to be attributed and sourced. Absence of evidence due to research failure isn't the issue; verifiability of the section as it stands is. Removal until rework is mandated by WP:V because the subject is living. I think this is probably to prevent legal repercussion, but regardless, it's poor form to retain (in its current form) what boils down to editor POV at best, unsourced gossip at worst. agapetos_angel 09:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
The critics and supporters have to be named, and their criticism/support must have been published in credible publications. SlimVirgin 09:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

5

His latest book, Refuting Compromise is a rebuttal of the day-age creationist teachings of Dr. Hugh Ross, who attempts to harmonize the Genesis account of creation with the belief that the earth is billions of years old, a position which Sarfati rejects.

  • Comment: This section was removed
    • Recommend: Retention
      • Justification: WP:CON, a version of this statement has been in the article at least since the unprotect. WP:V (and Misplaced Pages:Importance, although that isn't policy).
        • Reasons given for exclusion: None, that I found. It was simply removed by FM without discussion. Questioned here twice.
          • Objection: Lack of objection to content
            • Additional Comment: What is 'wrong' with keeping the Ross information, which explains the reason for the most current book that Sarfati authored? The subtitle is A biblical and scientific refutation of ‘progressive creationism’ (billions of years) as popularized by astronomer Hugh Ross(; therefore, the teachings should have a very brief mention to clarify why Sarfati wrote the book.

D5

Discussion regarding # 5:

  • I'm unclear about the context, but I assume someone keeps removing the reference to Ross? The question is: is the latest Sarfati book a rebuttal of Ross's creationist account? If Sarfati says that it is in his book (whether he specifically uses the word "rebuttal" or not), it's worth mentioning. If not, then not. SlimVirgin 08:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


6

Sarfati is the club captain/director-of-play for the Logan City Chess Club, Australia. He gives frequent "blindfold" chess exhibits at AiG conferences,(PDF) as well as chess clubs and has been known to play twelve such games simultaneously. His previous best was winning 11/11 at the Kapiti Chess Club in New Zealand (Roberts, E., New Zealand Chess 29(3):23, June 2003).

  • Comment: While not violating any policy, the inclusion of 'club captain/director-of-play' has been seen as adding fluff to the article.
    • Recommend: Dropping that phrase and moving the LCCC link (games and pictures) into another sentence.
      • Justification: n/a because inclusion doesn't violate policy

D6

Discussion regarding # 6:

It's certainly "V.", the issue is "N.". This is at best of marginal notability for me, though what concerns me more especially is the "many a mickle makes a muckle" aspect to this. At one point we had fully half the intro, and a three-paragraph section on the chess stuff, which does not concur with my estimation of proportionate to the respective notabilities of the subject, in this case. Alai 08:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
There's no harm in it though, and it's verified. It would seem churlish to leave it out. SlimVirgin 08:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I noticed on the talk pages that there is a post from someone who is a member of Croydon Chess, the link used for the recent blindfold chess exhibit source. He, and the iRfC, point to notablity of the Chess in general. However, I have to agree with Alai on 'marginal notability' in regards to the chess captain. agapetos_angel 09:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


Balance of Article to be addressed

Please do not edit below this header; still a work in progress


Sarfati has strongly defended the pro-life cause. Thus he opposes abortion for any reason except to save the life of the mother and opposes embryonic stem cell research, while supporting adult stem cell research. He has also argued that the Bible contradicts slavery and apartheid , and argued that Nazism owed much to evolutionary ideas.

  • Moral issues subsection needs to be MoSed. Overlinkage can be reduced to one link per point. Better: suggest 'Resources'/'Moral issues', where subsections can give subsection sources.
  • Lots of links are better than too few. I don't support the removal of links unless the articles or websites linked to are poor sources, or are entirely repetitive. SlimVirgin 08:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

1988, FIDE Master title, Fédération Internationale des Échecs or World Chess Federation

  • Address proper name and linke to FIDE. This neutral edit kept getting reverted.

External links

  • Needs to be MoSed


SV, this section was intended to be a work in progress (hidden note under header). I'm making notes and will use above format for ease in reading. I just wanted to take a couple steps at a time, while not losing train of thought on this issues. Sorry for the confusion. agapetos_angel 08:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry. I'll repeat/modify my replies depending on what you say. Post a note somewhere when you've finished so that I know it's okay to respond. SlimVirgin 08:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
My fault. I should have made that more obvious. I just needed a break, but didn't want to forget where I was headed. agapetos_angel 08:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there was any particular dispute over FIDE Master as such, though I must admit I too was getting rather narked off at one point at the speed at which things like fixing link texts were getting reverted in the general merry-go-round. Alai 08:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)