Talk:Jonathan Sarfati

This article was nominated for deletion on January 31, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 16 November 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Old discussions: /archive1/archive2/archive3 Discussion have also occured here: Talk:Jonathan_Sarfati/dispute.

(Others included in the bans, as per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel, are 220.245.180.133, 220.245.180.134, 220.245.180.130, 58.162.252.236, 58.162.255.242, and 58.162.251.204. This list is not exclusive and the ban applies to any user, registered or not, who engages in the same type of tendentious editing as has been done by Agapetos angel.)

proposed change

I propose changing It is widely believed that Sarfati posts at TheologyWeb [2] and other online fora using the screen name "Socrates." [3] to In 2003, Dave Moore in an article titled "Reply to Jonathan Sarfati" at Origins.com said "Dr. Sarfati posts at TheologyWeb under the screen name "Socrates" with the habit of referring to himself in the third person". [1]. This provides who said what where when. WAS 4.250 21:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

To what end? There's more than just Dave Moore that believes this. The current phrase is accurate as it stands. FeloniousMonk 22:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia style and citation rules allow phrasing like the current phrasing when there are many people who have a given opinion. That seems to apply in this case. JoshuaZ 22:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

What is the evidence? The second reference takes me to a page with nothing relevant on it. WAS 4.250 22:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

501 FeloniousMonk 01:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

O.K. That works for me. How about: Since at least 2003, Jonathan Sarfati has been identified with the name "Socrates" in some forums. [2] [3] [4]. WAS 4.250 03:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

While true, it is problematic, talkorigins.org is a reputable website, not a forum (although it shares the name with the internet group talk.origins). JoshuaZ 03:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Please suggest an alternative way of expressing this. I'm so stupid I didn't know that the term "forum" indicated something that was not a "reputable website". WAS 4.250 03:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, is posting to a forum (whether under his own name or a pseudonym) at all relevant to an encyclopedia article? I mean, I'm an active member of Theologyweb, and I've tangled with Socrates there, but compared to his other work and activity I would classify forum-posting as a tempest in a teapot. Justin Eiler 19:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Content dispute over 'Scientist?' section

wow, it seems to that basically all of what this discussion was about has been completely removed?? Howcome, why not put back in that he is/was a scientist (along with the views against it seeing that some people wish to push that)?? Can somebody who is more aware of what happened save me the trouble of searching back and point out exactly how/why/when this section went away?? Thanks. Mathmo 18:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons WAS 4.250 19:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Editing by enjoined users

User:203.213.77.138 is one of the enjoined parties precluded from editing this article and any other Sarfati-related article the arbcomm's final decision in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Agapetos_angel: "This list is not exclusive and the remedy applies to any user, registered or not, who engages in the same type of tendentious editing as has been done by Agapetos angel." Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Agapetos_angel/Proposed_decision#Agapetos_angel_et_al._banned

Additionally, User:203.213.77.138 was identified here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Agapetos_angel/Workshop#Sockpuppetry_.26_Meatpuppetry

User:203.213.77.138 has now been warned of the ruling on his talk page. Please report any instances of him continuing to edit Sarfati-related articles here: WP:AE. FeloniousMonk 05:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk is one who has been explicitly "reminded of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. They are instructed to seek dispute resolution rather than edit warring when involved with content disputes. The banning of Agapetos angel and her meat and sock puppets should not be interpreted as a license to make a hatchet job of the affected articles." Please report any violations of NPOV in any Sarfati-related articles here: WP:AE. 58.162.2.122 15:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Physical chemist

I remember for listening to the Jonathan Wells talk page that there was a discussion that he is not a biologist. I think the same arguments employed on that talk page can be used to omit Sarfati from the category of "Physical chemist". Much like Jonathan Wells, he has a legitimate degree, but he doesn't significantly contribute to the field of physical chemistry. Surely he has some peer-reviewed publications that he has co-authored, but the same can be said about Jonathan Corrigan Wells, too. They both published in top-tier journals, with Wells publishing in [i]PNAS[/i] and Sarfati in [i]Nature[/i].

Sarfati is not a practicing physical chemist, although he conducted original research in the past. He should not be considered as a practicing scientist, but he was a scientist in the past.

For fairness, we should remove him from this category, or we should add Jonathan Wells to the category of "Molecular biologist" too. I would not protest if this happens to Jonathan Wells, even though I deem him as a pseudoscientist.

LinkinPark 19:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

This article:

• Uses only creationist sources
• Presents creationism as fact, ignoring the majority views of scientists
• Fails to be at all objective.

This is the worst POV -probvlem-laden article I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you read the extended discussion above? The problem here is that all sarfati's opinions are published in creationist literature. If you want to cite his opinions you need to cite those sources. Second, people rarely bother to rebutt his opinion. As discussed above, in two of the talk sections (here and here), he is not even on the radar screen for most scientific sources, or even news sources. If you can find more than the two already cited:

Scott E.C. and Branch G. (2003). Antievolutionism: Changes and Continuities BioScience: 53(3):282-285.

Cartwright, R.A. and Theobald, D.L. (2001) Citing Scadding (1981) and Misunderstanding Vestigiality: Another Example of Poor Creationist Scholarship, Talk Origins archive.

then i'll be impressed. David D. (Talk) 20:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

When this article was being heavily disputed I looked for WP:RS-compliant sources that were critical of Sarfati and was unable to find any other significant ones. The bottom line is that David is correct, Sarfati is almost off the radar screen. Furthermore, he and AiG have become even less on the radar in the last few years as the main focus among evolution groups has been dealing with intelligent design. JoshuaZ 20:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, right. Well... is he actually notable then? Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

POV Sections

These sections, that seem to serve as nothing but an outlet for his views and a huge heap of non-notable chess stuff, I have moved here. We shouldn't be uncritically promulgating his views, as that's strongly POV, given the controversy, but there might be some usable content in these, so... I think without these, we're left with an article that stil needs work, but that can be brought into NPOV, but these sections need so much more work that there's little hope of fixing the article to a reasonable timescale with them in. Adam Cuerden ^talk 07:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC) Adam Cuerden ^talk 07:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am waiting for even a smidgen of criticism for the articles on the heroes of teh atheistic faith such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. 60.242.13.87 01:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This bit puts forth a lot of pseudoscience as fact. Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Not that Adam would know real science if he tripped over it.60.242.13.87 01:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Behave yourself 60.242.13.87: Wikipedia:No personal attacks Josh Parris 02:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Sarfati's writing covers a wide range of topics both within and outside his areas of formal training. Discussing astronomy, for example, he writes that the remains of supernovae, and distribution of comets, can provide explanations consistent with the universe having been created 6,000 years ago. On biology, he argues that all the animals required in Genesis to fit into Noah's Ark, including dinosaurs, would have been able to do so. He also argues that vestigial organs may have an unknown purpose, or that their existence would be explained by the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden.

This bit quotes bible passages inline? Also, it's very listy. Can't it be worked into something coherent? Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I think this paragraph is very helpful in pointing out his extreme views. I'd put it back in. -- Ssilvers 07:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Religion and morals

Sarfati says: "Right throughout Scripture, murder — that is the intentional killing of innocent humans — is regarded as a heinous sin (Exodus 20:13, Matthew 19:18, Romans 13:9). Since abortion kills an innocent human being, it is nothing less than murder. So all the usual 'hard cases' pushed by pro-abortionists, e.g. 'What if the woman was raped?', 'What if the child is deformed?', 'What if she can't afford to keep the child?' are completely irrelevant. We should also remember Ezekiel 18:20, which prohibits executing a child for the crime of his/her father — this means that even the tragic cases of pregnancies due to incest or rape are no justification for killing the innocent child conceived."

He has argued that "the Bible speaks against racism regardless of any way in which people have misused it."

He defends marriage as an institution joining one man and one woman, and opposes polygamy.

He opposes homosexual behaviour, while advocating "love the sinner, hate the sin."

He has endorsed Bernard Goldberg's suggestion that Roman Catholic priests who molest teenage boys should be called "gay priests" rather than "pedophile priests." In the same article, he used the terms "homonazis" and "sodomofascist" to refer to gays who advocate the imprisonment of pastors for calling homosexual acts sinful:

"Homosexuals are now a politically protected victim group, about which it is verboten to say anything negative. And certain homonazis want Christians punished if they quote from the Bible against homosexual behavior. Indeed, 63-year-old Pastor Åke Greenh was jailed in Sweden for just that, because they have such a sodomofascist law restricting Christian freedom. Fortunately his conviction was overturned on appeal, to the ire of homosexual activists, by a higher court because it was such an egregious violation of Sweden's free speech laws."

This section might be alright, but seems overly long Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Chess

File:Sarfatiblindfoldchess.jpg

Sarfati playing blindfold chess at 12 boards simultaneously

A New Zealand national chess champion in 1987-8, he represented New Zealand in three Chess Olympiads: the 27th in Dubai in 1986, the 28th in Thessaloniki in 1988, and the 30th in Manila in 1992. He also represented New Zealand at the 5th Asian Teams in New Delhi . He also tied Rey Casse in the Australian Junior Championship in 1981, but was not eligible to share the title because he was a resident of New Zealand at the time.

He is currently the club captain/director-of-play for the Logan City Chess Club, Australia.

He is known for giving blindfold chess exhibits at creationist conferences and chess clubs, and has played twelve such games simultaneously.

His previous best was winning 11/11 at the Kapiti Chess Club in New Zealand .

This section probably has some useful content, but much of it is non-notable, and having all of this is seriously undermining the NPOV of the links section. Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Presumably a lot of people had previously agreed to these, which after all explain what the subject stands for. 219.88.95.90 04:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Articles

• Uncut chapter from In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation, ed. John F. Ashton, ISBN 0-89051-341-4, 2001
• Loving God with all your mind: logic and creation, TJ 12(2):142–151, 1998
• Biblical Chronogenealogies, TJ 17(3):14–18, 2003 (defends Masoretic chronology of Gen. 5 & 11, and rejects gaps)
• Book review: Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins, TJ 12(1):29–34, 1998
• Stem cells and Genesis, TJ 15(3):19–26, 2001 (opposes embryonic stem cell research; supports somatic/adult stem cell research)
• Olfactory design: smell and spectroscopy, TJ 12(2):137-138, 1998
• What's Wrong With Bishop Spong? Laymen Rethink the Scholarship of John Shelby Spong Apologia 4(1):3-27, 1995
• Presuppositionalism vs evidentialism, and is the human genome simple? (6 June 2005 reply to AiG feedback)
• Defending vital doctrines and the deity of Christ (23 May 2005 reply to AiG feedback)

Original research

"Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. ... It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position; It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;" Wikipedia:No original research.

The following qualifies, and also breaks "the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately"

He also accuses many origin of life researchers, such as David Bartel of MIT and Gerald Joyce of the Scripps Research Institute, of having a religious kind of faith,[Sarfati article] although those scientists do not demonstrate any manifestation of religious faith. He also misrepresents the work of ribozyme evolution. For example, he argued that the mutagenesis of those experiments employed high error rates, which would cause error catastrophe, but high mutation rates were needed in those experiments simply to reduce the amount of time it would take to satisfactorially mutate a population of ribozymes to a significant extent, as opposed to using normal PCR techniques.[ibid]

It is especially disgraceful that two admins, FeloniusMonk and JoshuaZ are parties to this rule violation, due to their extreme ideological bias against the subject of the article.58.162.2.122 15:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Instead of making attacks on FM and me you could have discussed and pointed out your concern on the talk page earlier. I've removed the offending section until it can be better sourced due to the BLP concerns. I am happy to see that you are now using the talk page rather than editing the article. Thank you for complying with the arbitration ruling. JoshuaZ 17:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Gerald Joyce the faithless skeptic

Well, according to the survey of the members of the National Academy of Sciences, according to that sample size, it seems unlikely that Gerald Joyce has faith. It seems unlikely that Professor Joyce would do anything like believing bread and wine magically turn into the so-called Body of Christ or that some "benevolent" God created life in 6 days without some evidence.

Here are some sites that show that Professor Joyce believes that pursuing a religious agenda (much like the creationists and religious apologists) impedes one from pursuing knowledge as they often misrepresent scientific data to support their agenda:

http://www.scripps.edu/mb/joyce/47.html http://debat.ateist.net/showthread.php?p=5233#poststop http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/ucsdoriginoflife062003.htm

also here is an interesting source although I do not deem it reliable: http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3aa6b38a607a.htm ("shatcher" who allegedly worked with Joyce said something interesting). Although I think Joyce disagrees with religious people, I doubt he will explicitly call them pathetic as he respects other peoples beliefs.

I do think using those sources above do count as "original research", but I think it is enough to use the survey of the National Academy of Sciences and Joyce's membership in the National Academy of Sciences allows one to say that it is unlikely for him to be religious.

So it appears Professor Joyce lacks an important prerequiste for being a Christian or a believer in creationism: unquestioning faith. LinkinPark 18:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

But the point I wanted to stress is that Sarfati has no evidence that Gerald Joyce (or David Bartel) has any type of faith. In fact, such a faith is detrimental to science. LinkinPark 19:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, I would say that Joyce is a reductionist, well at least in the context of molecular biology. Well reductionism has been quite successful in explaining biological phenomena, at least it does a better job than any supernatural "explanation".

"Molecular biology has been remarkably successful in following a reductionist programme aimed at providing a detailed understanding of biological phenomena in terms of the laws of physics and chemistry. It is natural to wonder to what degree this programme can be extended towards understanding the origin of life itself. All of biology rests on the foundations of neo-darwinism, drawing from the principles of population biology and molecular genetics." - Gerald Joyce. 1990. In the Beginning, Nature 346: 806. (too lazy to cite it properly).

So yes, he is quite confident that a reductionist explanation will be found, but he will obviously change his mind if some evidence comes in that supports intelligent design. Well, he has no reason to change his mind because he notes that reductionism has been quite successful in elucidating the evolution of life, and comprehension of that phenomena at the molecular level. LinkinPark 03:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The material is irrelevant to the article, which is an article about Safardi, not Joyce. It therefore amounts to attack, and I have removed it. I would urge that its re-insertion not be insisted on, since including such content does not help the article or the subject. There is enough other material here to dispute. (smile) DGG 02:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Researcher?

How is it possible for someone to be notable as a researcher? Steve Dufour 17:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

How about he is a notable writer but his title at AiG is researcher? I think that was the argument at the time. See archives for more. David D. (Talk) 17:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I already changed the article, before I got your message, so that it says he is an "author and chess player". From what the article says these are the things he is known for. As a chess player he was champion of New Zealand, and his books and articles seem to be talked about. Steve Dufour 17:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it makes little difference, certainly the chess plays some part of notability although his work with AiG is his primary reason for inclusion here. David D. (Talk) 19:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Views and Criticisms

I will not so anything so radical myself....However I think all the sections on his writing and opinions and the criticism against him should be removed. His books are already listed. His opinions are standard conservative Christian opinions. And the criticism is just people with a different point of view saying they disagee with him. Nothing is remarkable or even interesting. Steve Dufour 18:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I would say that his books, Refuting Evolution and Refuting Evolution 2 are notable as they represented rebuttals to the National Academy of Sciences' and PBS/Nova series "Evolution," respectively both of which were quite prominent when framed in the religion/evolution debate. Thus, critiques of those books are very relevant. David D. (Talk) 19:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

How about mentioning the fact that the books were in response to the program and then giving the "crude piece of propaganda" quote? Steve Dufour 21:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That seems important since much of his notability stems from those books and the criticism of them. David D. (Talk) 22:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me: He has written three books promoting creationism and was the chess champion of New Zealand. Not a whole lot else to say. Steve Dufour 06:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Steve Dufour has a point. What atheist or evolutionist has such a large portion of an article devoted to criticism? Indeed, it's hard to find any criticism of them that their supporters don't vandalize out. 60.242.13.87 07:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hearsay

I removed this and then it was put back:

According to Dave Moore at the Talk Origins Archive, Sarfati posts at TheologyWeb and other online forums using the screen name "Socrates."

This kind of thing doesn't belong in a WP article on a living person. Besides being extremely petty. Steve Dufour 21:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, website login names are definitely not notable. Ashmoo 23:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

POV

There's only a single paragraph on criticsm, stating exactly one actual criticism and two bashings with no content provided. This is extreme undue weight, given he's a very controversial figure. Take for example the article on Richard Dawkins - most notable criticisms are listed right there in the section they criticise, in sufficient detail. Why should Sarfati be protected? Adam Cuerden ^talk 08:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It's simply because no one bothers to criticise him. If you can find published criticism that specifically addresses Sarfati then i don't think anyone will have a problem of you adding it. In general if a scientist ever bothered to criticise these types of anti-scientific statements they will criticise the movement as a whole not individuals within the movement. There are just too many like Sarfati to try and counter with specific criticism. David D. (Talk) 20:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is there no specific criticism of Dawkins? Repeatedly, critical articles have been deleted from the list of links on his page. Similarly for Sam Harris. 60.242.13.87 08:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Tell me, have you actually read the article on Dawkins, or are you just presuming he's not criticised? Adam Cuerden ^talk 09:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I just had a quick look at the Dawkins article. You seem to be confusing the fact that there is not a section titled criticism with the notion that the article does not include criticism. ::: However the criticism has been woven into the article itself. This is a much better approach, in my opinion since it means the narrative is more balanced. Here are some of the criticisms from the religions section in the Dawkins article.

Some critics claimed the programme gave too much time to marginal figures and extremists, and that Dawkins' confrontational style did not help his cause. [8][9]

Oxford theologian Alister McGrath, author of Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life and The Dawkins Delusion? , has accused Dawkins of being ignorant of Christian theology.

Another Christian philosopher, Keith Ward, explores similar themes in his book Is Religion Dangerous?, arguing against the view of Dawkins and others that religion is socially dangerous.

The biologist Steven Rose considers that: "Richard’s view about belief is too simplistic, and so hostile that as a committed secularist myself I am uneasy about it. We need to recognise that our own science also depends on certain assumptions about the way the world is – assumptions that he and I of course share."[10]

Maybe your problem is that you would like to see more criticism? David D. (Talk) 17:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed modifications of the article (drastic)

As far as I can tell the AfD resulted in a keep because of his chess accomplishments not because of his creationism. I therefore would like to propose drastically cutting out the creationism and other religious viewpoints and focus on the chess. JoshuaZ 21:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk about original research! 60.242.13.87 08:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

One does worry about cutting out the controversy of a controversial figure. But it might make sense for such a inor figure (but is the chess really notable? Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Joshua Z said it was, especially the draw with Spassky.60.242.13.87 08:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Joshua's point is that it appears that the chess is the most notable aspect (not that Sarfati is notable at all). So he should be "chess player and author", not "author and chess player". Guettarda 21:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

For Joshua Z, "neutrality" on a creationist bio means filling it with much petty criticism as he can get away with, but "neutrality" on the bio of a rabid atheist like Dawkins means getting rid of the slightest criticism. As Phillip Rayment pointed out a while back (on the first vexatious deletion attempt), no evolutionist has huge sections devoted to "criticism".60.242.13.87 08:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Another example of his "objectivity" was his own admission on his own talk page, under "Pages I have made": "TalkOrigins Archive (although was almost completely a draft from Wesley R. Elsberry)". I.e. he posted an article about an anti-creationist site that comes from its current leader (this is neutrality in Joshua's eyes evidently). This is exactly analogous making a CMI page that "was almost completely a draft from" Carl Wieland! Yet Joshua Z would scream bloody murder at the thought!60.242.13.87 08:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh hi, didn't notice this early. A gentle reminder of Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy and civility policy. That said, the draft from Elsberry wasn't directly as Elsberry constructed, I wonder why, it couldn't by any chance have to do with making the draft closer to conforming to Wikipedia policies now could it? Second, you are entitled to look at the article's initial version and inform me of there were any POV concerns in it. You can find it here. If Wieland gave us a close to neutral draft of a CMI article and we had no article about CMI, I'd be happy to use his draft as a starting point. Now, do you have any actual comments to make about specific points in the article? JoshuaZ 08:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Alleged Support of torture

I would hardly say that:

Let’s interrogate the capturees as if they were airline passengers—that might get lifesaving information out of them.

is support for torture. I'd call it black humour. Josh Parris 05:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, which is why I took it out, with the edit comment, The reference does not support the claim, at least in any meaningful way. My deletion was reversed with the unhelpful comment, Returning bogus deletion. This change was reversed again, without comment, and reversed again, with the comment rv unexplained deletion. Unexplained? I explained it; it was those reinserting it that didn't explain their actions! Philip J. Rayment 08:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, we know that this comment comes from Sarfati, since the two of them are friends, so the usual problem of blogs not being reliable is not an issue (and since it self-verifies about Sarfati's opinion, that isn't a problem). The comment seems to me to be pretty clearly in support of torture of suspects with an attempt at humorous phrasing. Now, I'm not convinced that this is notable since I'm not convinced that almost any of the material on Sarfati's politics are notable(no one has ever discussed them in any reliable sources). But if one believes that his politcis are notable, then this is notable. JoshuaZ 08:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

In fact, looking at this further, I don't see why not to pare down the morals sections and the politics section to a short section on views. JoshuaZ 08:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, he's coming out in favour of Guantamano Bay. This is tantamount to supporting torture, but not exactly the same. I'm afraid I have a few strong Republican friends, and do know they actively deny that torture happens there (I suspect it has to do with their sources - Republicans are very good at propoganda). So supporting Guantamano is not quite the same as supporting torture - it may be simply a sign of state-sponsored ignorance. Adam Cuerden ^talk 09:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That's sort of right. In any case, it is proof that "Sarfati supports torture" is unwarranted original research. If JoshuaZ insists on citing a blog in his desperation to attack any anti-atheist apologist, he should cite what Sarfati actually said and let the readers make their own judgement. Most people would understand it the same way as Josh Parris. If not, JoshuaZ is implying that airline passengers really are tortured!211.30.143.246 14:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, we know that this comment comes from Sarfati, since the two of them are friends, so the usual problem of blogs not being reliable is not an issue ...

No, you don't know that, even if it is a reasonable suspicion. I don't know for sure that Jonathan Sarfati wrote that, but neither do I know that he didn't, so I simply didn't comment on that aspect.

Neither am I confirming nor denying that he and I are friends, and I suspect that you have jumped to a conclusion there, whether an incorrect one or not.

Philip J. Rayment 09:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to remind you of wikipolicy we don't need to *know* something for it to be included in Wikipedia, only that it be published by a reliable source. 151.151.21.104 18:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Blogs are not reliable sources per WP guidelines, regardless of relationships editors presume exist. Furthermore, the statement made about torture in the article is not in the least supported by that (unreliable) source (NB it isn't even close to being a paraphrase of the original comment). Instead, it is a disallowed commentary by an editor dressed with a link for faux respectability. As this is a bio of a living person, it is prudent for editors to err on the side of caution. 58.162.2.122 00:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems that JoshuaZ once opposed deleting this article as long as he could insert as many damaging things as he could. When it turned out that he didn't have things entirely his own way, he tried to delete the article only a few months after the previous deletion attempt was rebuffed 2-1, and Josh's attempt was rebuffed by almost the same amount. Now he is trying his old tricks of inserting damaging stuff, even though it violates Wiki rules against using blogs as sources and original research (which the "torture" allegation surely is), as well as censoring some of Sarfati's anti-racism comments. This guy is not fit to be an admin, because of his incredible lack of objectivity.211.30.143.246 14:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with JoshuaZ reasonably often, but would have to say that he is fit to be an admin. The vast majority of his edits are reasonably objective IMHO. ^rossnixon 00:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

211 is right, Ross. JZ is so obsessed with blackening the name of anyone opposed to his own atheistic faith that he resorts to unethical tactics. First he tries to delete this article, soon after a previous attempt was rejected. Now he tries this skullduggery: insert an outrageously mendacious piece of OR, then "generously" agree to remove it as long as he can remove a lot of other material, which is properly sourced factual information.

Was the ArbCom ruling just?

He has also abused admin powers to bully opponents by threatening and banning them, on the flimsiest excuse that they might have connections to Sarfati himself (just look at his paranoia with Philip Rayment above). Of course, the real reason is that they undid some of his OR and Verify violations. While he hinds behind that ArbCom ruling, that was clearly illegal and exceeding their authority, because Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, has explicitly stated that there is no rule agaimst editing one's own articles, and indeed, he has edited his own bio page. So how can an ArbCom ruling be valid if it contradicts the founder's own rules? FeloniousMonk was another admin who was cited in the ruling for tendentious editing, yet he has abused his power in the same way by banning his opponents. Known tendentious admins should certainly be forbidden from banning their ideological opponents. 58.162.2.122 03:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh hi Jonathan- a reminder not to engage in personal attacks (and once again Jonathan, I'm not an atheist and if I were it would be irrelevant to my edits). Also you misintrepet what the policy is- someone can edit their own bio - that's the default status although it is not generally recommended. That is completely consistent with the ArbCom deciding that you cannot edit yours by virtue of your disruption and POV pushing. If you think that the ArbCom overstepped their bounds then go talk to Jimbo, in the meantime try to cut out the personal attacks and let's discuss the matter at hand, ok? JoshuaZ 03:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Once more, Joshua thinks that anyone who supports Sarfati must be Sarfati or a friend or family member. Who on earth is Jimbo? And yes, it is obvious that the ArbCom ruling was overstepping the boundaries when it imposes a unique restriction and also failed to punish in the slightest those like Felonious Monk that were cited for tendentious editing. Indeed, FM has even subsequently banned opponents, although someone cited for tendentious editing on an article should have no admin powers over it. Thus the admins like you and FM are every bit as corrupt and power-mad as claimed in The Six Sins of the Wikipedia (from American Chronicle, by another person who was unjustly banned by little Hitler admins).58.162.2.122 07:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Further, that ArbCom ruling seems to have been payback by rank-closing admins for AgapetosAngel complaining cogently about some of their own. Never mind that a fair-minded ideologically opposed admin like Durova presented AA with a Barnstar Award for edits, and AA had proven conclusively that Sarfati's enemies had violated Wiki rules all over the place. Yet AA is the one banned from editing, while the rule-breaking Sarfati-haters have free rein to insert all sorts of libel. POV pushing JoshuaZ? Of course your libellous accusation of torture support has nothing to do with your enmity towards Sarfati, as shown by your desperate attempt to have the article deleted. And now you talk about civility -- I hope others are not fooled by his passive-aggressive behaviour.58.162.2.122 23:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that avoid making comments like comparing other users to Hitler, they are unproductive, not civil, and likely to offend other users. As I have told you before, if you disagree with the ArbCom ruling or think it should not apply to you then go appeal to Jimbo. JoshuaZ 19:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Otheus Responds

Ahem, you clearly dislike the ArbCom ruling, though based on your summary, it is doubtful you have actually read it. For the record, FM and other editors were warned specifically not to turn the related articles into "hatchet jobs[s]". Otheus

Oh, wowsy, they were warned, while AA was banned. That will really show them! Esp. when their position is strengthened because of the disproportionate punishment, so that they are now simply able to ban their main opposition.58.162.2.122 09:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

(It hasn't been, see diff since ArbCom ruling.) Second, AA was banned from editing this and associated articles because of her personal relationship with them, an alleged made (albeit in bad faith) but never refuted. Otheus

Even if this were the case, it would not be against the rules, since Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wiki, has edited his own articles. 58.162.2.122 09:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Right. Two points. I'll reiterate the first one: As long as a user who edits their own articles is not tendentious (or reverting libel, vandalism, etc), it's not even against the guideline. On the flip side, such a user who edit wars or who unduly pushes a POV in such an article is violating the guideline, and moreover an important policy. Now, note, I'm not saying I think AA was editing tendentiously: others decided that.

Second: Jimmy Wales obviously edited his own article -- there was no question it was his, there was no hidden COI. That was not the case with AA. --Otheus 21:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I see no indication AA criticised members of the ArbCom committee, as (possibly incorrectly) implied above. Otheus

Is there any point, when there was such a blatant case of corrupt rank-closing? And when people who had viciously attacked her are strengthened by the ruling? 58.162.2.122 09:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You evaded my question. Besides, the point was whether her criticism of ArbCom before the ruling influenced their ruling, and your rhetorical questions are about after the ruling. --Otheus 21:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, your noting that the ruling seems to have been payback is rather unsupportabe; based on it, I would say that your comment seems to be from one who is personally involved. Otheus

It is a reasonable explanation for punishing AA with a ban that still has yet to be rescinded after a whole YEAR for pointing out rulebreaking by their fellow admins, and allowing blatantly objectivity-lacking admins like Felonious Monk such power over his opponents. 58.162.2.122 09:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, I think the problem here is that no one pointed out to the Arb Committee the fact that the admins were partially or collectively breaking rules. I'm sorry if I didn't make that point clearly before. That's why I disagree with the ruling, but blame the prosecution. You familiar with the O. J. Simpson murder case? Same thing: wrong verdict, right reasons. --Otheus 21:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

*Sigh* But before you argue, I will say this: I actually disagree with the ruling and find that some of the admins in that dispute, excluding at least Jim62Sch, were quite aggressive and should have been punished and possibly stripped of their FM admin status. Otheus

Good to hear. So meanwhile, what can be done about this? As it stands, there is no way we can get fair editing when one side, which has been found guilty of tendentious editing, has the power to ban the other side for even touching the article. 58.162.2.122 09:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

However, the fact that this didn't happen is not the ArbCom's fault, but IMNSHO, the fault of AA to effectively argue a single point. Otheus

Come off it. The Arbs are supposed to rule justly, and to be SEEN to be just. This is manifestly not the case here. And it's not that AA didn't argue any points, but that the little cabal of 5 or 6 chose to ignore them and defend their fellow Admins.58.162.2.122 09:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's wrong on several levels. Otheus

I'm sorry, but you are not achieving anything in your quest to be considered objective. Please make up your mind: was this ruling just or not? You said before that you disagreed with the ruling; now you seem to be proving the point about rank-closing. And I would say that especially for a new user, she acquitted herself very well against a cabal of Admins. Frankly, the whole thing was like the old way that police used to investigate complaints against themselves.58.162.2.122 14:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. I've been trying really hard to be very fair and objective. Perhaps the problem is that I'm splitting hairs too finely. See my point above about OJ Simpson trial. I think that expresses the seeming duplicity. --Otheus 21:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

First, I didn't say AA didn't argue any points -- I said AA didn't make a good case; ie, her presentation of points was weak. Further, after seemingly a month, she [11] withdrew] from the process.

Of course, when the people who should be in charge of maintaining fairness at Wiki are mounting increasing personal attacks, and it was becoming increasingly clear that they were closing ranks against her. As Vaknin said, most people have a LIFE, while others become WikiAdmins :P 58.162.2.122 14:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I read what you cited, and here is her final reason:

I've stopped participating on that RfA because no matter what I say to defend myself, I'm supposedly lying, and no matter that I show the other editors' misbehaviour, I am supposedly only deflecting attention from myself (ignoring that the RfA was to examine ALL behaviour). Hopefully it will be over soon and we can all go back to constructive editing. I just wanted to clear up these points with you. agapetos_angel 07:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

So here you go -- it clearly WAS relevant how the others behaved, yet the RfA devolved onto a personal attack against her. And despite her stated desire for peace, the result was that she was banned, while the cabal slapped their co-admins with a wet noodle in punishment for their violations, and allowed them to retain all their powers, and even increased them with a blanked permission to ban AA et al. 58.162.2.122

I certainly believe it was a mistake to allow the other parties to enforce the ban. I would have urged the ArbCom committee to have others to enforce it. However, given your earlier analogy to cops, yeah, admins are like cops. When they catch a criminal, and the criminal yells "harrassment", and the cops say "just doing my job", you don't ban those cops from arresting the same criminal again. (Now, on the other hand, if the cops are caught planting evidence, searching without a warrant, etc, then they should at least be demoted. The problem here again is ... the ArbCom didn't see this evidence.) --Otheus 21:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This certainly did not help her case. You say that it is "manifestly not the case" that the ArbComs were SEEN to be just. But where does AA defend herself against the principle charges? Otheus

Her lack of defending herself in the RfC (diff you provided) is hardly proof that she didn't defend herself at all. You seem to have missed that the RfC opening (16 February 2006) was nearly concurrent with the ArbCom case request (17 February 2006), so the RfC became unnecessary and she didn't participate in it as ArbCom overran it and the RfC was delisted. The initial intention by the filing admin seems to have been to protect AA from perceived identity harassment (one statement said that FM telephoned someone he mistakenly thought was her), but this was changed to an examination of AA's behaviour without following proper dispute resolution procedure (i.e., ArbCom should have denied the case and referred it back to RfC. It was escalated (and a newbie was bitten) unnecessarily. That she (self-identified as a female multiple times) didn't defend herself well, according to your opinion, could be understood to be someone not completely familiar with overcoming admin Wiki-lawyering and closing of ranks. It could also be seen as someone who didn't have time to make enough Wiki-friends to jump on the bandwagon to defend her. That she became discouraged and quit adding testimony after repeatedly being called a liar (ignored personal attacks) is understandable. 58.162.2.122 00:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

As stated, it is thoroughly unjust when one party that was warned about tendentious editing got off with a warning, and can still ban their opponents.58.162.2.122 14:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• That AA is personally involved with the Sarfati page

As this is not against the rules, even if true, this is neither here nor there. If the founder of Wiki is allowed to edit his articles, this cannot be used as an argument for blocking.

• That AA is deceiving the community by not acknowledging AA's involvement

Same applies here.58.162.2.122 14:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• That AA violated 3RR multiple times, receving blocks 5 times

Hardly surprising when her ideological opponents are the ones who blocked her!! 58.162.2.122 14:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• That AA, after having the page's protected status removed, again violated 3RR

Which was quite justified considering the slander and rule violations that she reverted.58.162.2.122 14:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

All of your objections miss the point. The point is she (can I call her she?) didn't defend herself as such. If she had, maybe we wouldn't be having this argument. And if she did defend herself as such, please point me to the diffs. Please! --Otheus 21:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Now please don't answer with "FM and Guettardo did too!". Of course they did, but we're not discussing them. They presented a case, and if anyone wonders why they were not similarly treated, simply observe that such a case was not presented against them. It's not up to a judge or arbitrator to go searching for evidence that is not presented nor claimed!! Otheus

Oh yes we ARE discussing them, because the whole point is the disproportionate punishment. Even a year later, AA and quite a few people are STILL banned. So we get this thoroughly corrupt situation where arch-slanderer JoshuaZ can insert a lie about torture, then ban someone like AA for reverting this lie, as can the tendentious editor FM.58.162.2.122 14:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Helpful comment: calling "JoshuaZ" an arch-slanderer is akin to calling him a liar, which is a form of Personal Attack. He notes this later, and I was confused as to his reference, which is why I mention it here. Just to be clear, I do not see it as a Personal Attack myself, but you should note that at any rate, such a statement is "skating on thin ice". --Otheus 20:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I am willing to discuss "them" (the "admin cabal") if you are willing to see my point that AA's punishment was, in and of itself, irrespective of any other judgements in that case, and given all the evidence provided to ArbCom, an appropriate judgment. Will you make that concession? If so, then I think we can forward. --Otheus 21:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

And please don't merely refer to AA's comment on the Arbitration page. Basically, AA's argument isn't that AA was disruptive or violating policies, it was that "he/she was right to do so" (paraphrasing).

If you would like to discuss the "cabal" and their actions, feel free to email me or pick it up on my Talk page. --Otheus 12:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No thanx, I want to show to ALL readers how corrupt this whole process was: the likes of JoshuaZ are not only free to slander people on their bios, but can also ban those who try to rectify this wrong. And this page is just the place to do so, not hide away on your talk page. Vaknin was right about the way Wiki is run, it seems.58.162.2.122 14:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting you mention Vaknin. I just came across this man's send-up, and I spent the better part of a day responding to it. I have posted under my user page here. My subtle suggestion for you to email me was so that we could confer on things that I would like to discuss with you that are definitely not appropriate to discuss here. --Otheus 19:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

(Reiterating) Now, can we get back to making the article better? Is there anything you (58.162.2.122) would like to see redacted or augmented? Try me, you might find me fairly objective. --Otheus 12:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)~

You have been tried, yet you persistently defend a small cabal of Admins in their manifestly disproportionate life ban for one side's editing, blaming the victim. 58.162.2.122 09:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you always write before you read? ;) --Otheus 12:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you always ask leading questions? ;) What possible chance is there of a fair decision when one side in this dispute has the power to ban the other side? Is this Wikijustice?58.162.2.122 14:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

58.162, Please do not engage in personal attacks and please see our our policy about legal threats which is relevant to using terms like "Slander". Two further points, first, AA is welcome to make comments on article talk pages of the Sarfati and other articles, and is welcome to fully edit other, unrelated topics. Second, you may recall that AA voted neutral in my RfA precisely because she thought I was one of the more reasonable editors who disagreed with her. Given that, I have trouble seeing how I could be an "arch-slander". JoshuaZ 19:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion to rescind ArbCom ruling

From comments here, the main assistance you could do would be to try to get this ArbCom ruling rescinded. It seemed very much like AA made a good case, pointing out a number of cases when Sarfati's opponents violated explicit Wikirules, but was severely ganged up on, and 58 was reasonable in thinking this was payback and rankclosing rather than a just decision. I see no basis for punishing the one who brought the RfA far more than his/her opponents, by a decision of only six admins. Otherwise how can 58 expect a fair hearing when his opponents have the power to ban him for any edit he does no matter how reasonable (and indeed, even for commenting on non-articles like the last attempt to delete this page), while they can make any tendentious edit they like without any consequences. 60.242.13.87 09:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Pshawww. If I had that kind of clout man, maybe I wouldn't be looking for a job. And if I may, about your comment that AA made "a good case", AA wouldn't win a suit against a straw man. She made a few good points, but she made a mess of the case. --Otheus 19:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

60 made a reasonable point. AA seemed to make a very well documented case, citing Wiki rules and where admins had violated them. And as 60 documents, there were people like Durova who supported her, and even the rank-closing cabal agreed that her opponents had been guilty of tendentious editing. Yet they are still allowed to ban her, even though their arguments in the dispute amounted to little more than vicious personal attacks. As long as this ruling remains, punishing AA who brought up the rule-breaking and, in effect, strengthening her opponents, Wiki cannot be seen to be just, as Philip Rayment points out. 58.162.2.122 09:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting piece at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel#Comment by Durova, which makes one really wonder about the justice of the ban (with emphasis added):

Given that my views on science are strongly opposed to those of User:Agapetos angel I'm disposed to be critical. That said, you have failed to establish the relevance of your investigation. Agapetos Angel has focused on the content of the articles and correctly raised relevant encyclopedic policies. The case for evolution is strong enough that there is no need to bend policy or conduct ad hominem attacks. What I saw at Talk:Jonathan Sarfati was a set of hostile editors who erected uniquely high standards of evidence regarding information that could be in Mr. Sarfati's favor. It would be rather unusual for someone to obtain a Ph.D. in chemistry without publishing a few peer reviewed papers, yet these editors insisted that every paper on his C.V. be double checked against relevant publications for authenticity and every journal's peer review practice receive independent verification. The only excuse for such extraordinary scrutiny is Mr. Sarfati's minority opinion on evolution. The publications themselves are nothing spectacular: a handful of routine studies in physical chemistry, unrelated to evolutionary theory, and more than a decade out of date. This is a near-great chess player who abandoned the beginnings of a career in science to become an author of general audience books. One of the hardest things to do is to take a procedural stand in support of something I disagree with, but I have to say that Agapetos Angel's editorial decisions are healthy and productive: if you want to develop a really good refutation of Mr. Sarfati and his beliefs, then solicit the best evidence in his favor from the editors best able to provide it. This man isn't much in the world of science. Durova 19:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Butting in here, whilst I appreciate your removal of your previous comment and the civil way you've discussed this ruling, I would take issue with a few points. First, I can't see why two groups of editors both found guilty of the same thing were treated differently (Agapetos Angel and others banned from editing it, and the opposing faction simply warned). Second, your comment that Agapetos Angel was banned because of a personal relationship seems to contradict both Wikipedia policy and previous comments[12] that this was not the reason. Rayment

Well, though its not explicitly stated, they were NOT found guilty of the same things (plural). AA was accused of using (or being a) several meat- and sock-puppets to edit an article she allegedly had personal ties to. Though it's not against WP policy to edit one's own article, it certainly is not a contradiction of WP policy. (This is what JZ means when he says default status.) However, AA's editing was found to be against the guideline, the guideline which is based on the principle that such edits are rarely non-POV. In AA's case, it was found that AA's edits amounted to tendentious (heavy POV) editorializing. So it was a combination of violating the guideline of editing one's own article, and of doing so in a tendentious manner. The other editors might have only been guilty of the latter. And it should be noted, by the way, that AA's punishment was simply this: don't do it again! The "ban" was merely one of editing this and related articles -- not a ban from using WP altogether. The others were not similarly punished because there was no evidence or claim of evidence that these other editors were personally involved with this article. I hope that clears it up.

-Otheus 07:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it's not explicitly stated. And I read it the other way. I guess I naively presumed that the ruling would be based on facts, not suspicions. Rayment

Point for you. --Otheus 10:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that a small cabal wanted to ban AA, and just found any excuse to do so. Now it seems that they claim that AA has a relationship with Sarfati so AA should not edit this article. But then, there are no rules in Wiki that says that Sarfati himself is disallowed from editing his article, so how much less excuse is there for banning AA?

And if the excuse was that AA was tendentious in editing, why were not the other tendentious authors like Felonious Monk and Duncharris banned from editing the article as well. Certainly, why was FM allowed to continue banning oppponents when he has shown himself to lack objectivity in this matter.

Note also, some of the bans were in punishment for correcting blatant vandalism on this article, e.g. the torture nonsense. So it wasn't just a one sided "AA, don't make tendentious editing again or you will be banned (Felonious Monk is allowed not only to make tendentious edits but ban you if you do, so even handed are we). It was "don't make any edits at all (while your opponents are not muzzled in the slightest and are even given power to enforce this ruling)".

Clearly this arbcom ruling is unjust. How can this be appealed? It sure needs to be rescinded, because as it stands, it supports the contentions of the "six sins of Wiki" article. And it seems that Otheus and JoshuaZ don't agree with the outright ban, although JoshuaZ seemed most eager to enforce it, even if it was undoing one of his more egregious edits.60.242.13.87 08:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm? Whether I agree with the ArbCom and whether I will enforce its rulings are different issues. If admins decide not to enforce rulings they disagree with, things will fall apart very quickly. Furthermore, I never said that I disagreed with it, merely that I've been willing to give minor leeway to edits that were non-controversial in nature and that I don't think the ArbCom meant it to apply to Wikipedia space. JoshuaZ 19:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course it suits JoshuaZ to enforce this particular nonsensical and manifestly unjust ruling, since then he is free to insert his slanderous comments and ban those who undo them. 60.242.13.87 01:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow what you mean by it not being a contradiction of policy. It's not a contradiction of policy to ban someone partly because they've done something (editing an article they are related to) that's not a contradiction of policy? Again, I naively presumed that people would be punished for breaking the rules, not for sticking within them. Rayment

Heh :) I think we might be lost in a mix of words here. You said:

Second, your comment that Agapetos Angel was banned because of a personal relationship seems to contradict both Wikipedia policy and previous comments...

I am unclear what you meant. What contradicted WP policy? My comment and previous comments? Or the ban? Or the personal relationship? I assumed you meant that it contradicted WP policy for an editor to edit an article about something said editor has a personal relationship with. --Otheus 10:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I was meaning that your view that she was banned because of a personal relationship was contradicted by policy which allows a person to edit an article their own article, or one that they are close to. Clearly such an editor has to be careful to be neutral, and the ArbCom concluded that she wasn't, but I saw that as a separate issue. Is that clearer now? Philip J. Rayment 12:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, clear. Correct, my view was incorrect, out of context. The policy ("the default") permits such a person to edit such an article as long as POV is not violated. And we agree that ArbCom concluded it wasn't; however, I think we disagree about whether it was a "separate" issue. --Otheus 12:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I understand your point about Agapetos Angel's punishment being for a combination of things, but (a) this is, as you said, not explicitly stated, and (b) seems to be biased. In effect, it imposes a greater punishment on the same "crime" because the perpetrator—a relatively new and inexperienced editor—was going against guidelines, than it does on other perpetrators who were far more experienced (including at least one admin) and who therefore should have a greater awareness of what was required.

Philip J. Rayment 09:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, put that way, I agree. Otheus 10:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so you can be objective sometimes ;) 58.162.2.122 14:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Otheus is clearly trying to be objective and fair. That's not to say that he always succeeds, but credit where credit is due. Philip J. Rayment 01:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on changes since the ArbCom ruling

It should be noted that ArbCom was the "last straw", and I did not read the full history of prior mediation and RfC's -- only the parts that related to AA's privacy, which by the way, is how I came interested in the subject at all. I do not know at all if such prior attempts were reasonable, nor do I know if ArbCom looked at those issues.

--Otheus 10:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC) Please email me at gmail.com if you want to discuss this more, which I'd be happy to.

There was no prior mediation or RfC.58.162.2.122 01:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

As for changes since that ruling, I haven't compared them because a change to the order of sections means that the diff you provided shows a lot more differences than there actually are, but this very section is because someone included negative and unsupported claims that Sarfati supported torture. That's hardly in line with the ruling.

Philip J. Rayment 14:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the diff does not make for an easy side by side comparison. However, it's a handy link to both versions of the article which could be rendered and compared side by side after, say, printing them out, or if you have a big monitor, using two browsers.

About the torture comment, I remember seeing it and thinking "Ah, a man of convictions". It's no longer there, and if it was put there unresponsibly, I would be curious to know if it was done by one of the aforementioned editors. --Otheus 07:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The insertion was made by a sockpuppet of one of the editors—no, I'm making that up, but given the ready accusations of sockpuppetry here I almost feel justified in jumping to that conclusion. Seriously, it was made by a new editor with no previous posts (and only three other posts since)[13]. I removed it[14], and it was reinstated by an anonymous editor[15]. It was removed again by another editor [16], and reinstated by one of the editors named in that ArbCom ruling[17]. It was removed again by an anonymous editor[18], and reinstated by another of the editors named in that ArbCom ruling[19]. Philip J. Rayment 09:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom enforcement questioned

Incidentally, I also find it curious that the ban on editors presumed to be Agapetos Angel or related to Agapetos Angel is mainly being enforced by one of the editors involved in that dispute.

Philip J. Rayment 09:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Enforcement is a simple matter- all enforcement has occured for various specific IP ranges with specifc mannerisms and other issues. Nothing in the abritration said anything about who could enforce it, and the ArbCom has seen on the enforcement page who has been enforcing. If they had an issue, they would have made it clear from the outset. JoshuaZ 07:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Justice should not only be done, but should be seen to be done, as the saying goes. Furthermore, enforcement in this case is not totally objective, as the ban applies to "Jonathan Sarfati and associated articles". Should an opposing admin decide what qualifies as an "associated" article? The last blockage (17th February) seems particularly ludicrous, not even being an article. Philip J. Rayment 12:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would second that. From an outsider's viewpoint, "associated articles" should not have been interpreted (as it was by some) to include AiG. Concerning JZ's comment, does the ArbCom really monitor these logs? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Otheus (talk • contribs) 14:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

A few commnets- first, I'm in agreement that the Feb 17 block was probably not the correct thing to do- I don't think that the arbitration was meant to apply to non-article space. That said, a clarification of the Arbitration earlier (I'll see if I can dig it up) that our friendly IP made confirmed that the articles covered should include AIG and related articles. In a related note, I don't know if the ArbCom actually looks at the enforcement logs, but the clarification request made it clear who had been blocking, so if there was an issue with that, they would have said so. Furthermore, I (and possibly others, but I'm not sure) have in fact been deliberately lax in enforcement- when the relevant IP ranges have made minor spelling and grammar edits I have not blocked even though by a strict interpretation I should. JoshuaZ 15:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Once again, this proves nothing, if arbs are willing to close ranks, as seems to be the case here. This ban should not exist for one moment longer, given that other tendentious editors of the opposite persuasion escaped scot-free, although if anything their punishment should have been greater because admins are supposed to set a good example. And FM, one of the tendentious editors cited (but unpunished) even banned 58 for commenting without voting on the deletion attempt. This is straight out bullying and abuse of power.60.242.13.87 09:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If you think that FM was abusive then file an RfC. This is not the venue for that matter. JoshuaZ 19:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there any point when admins clearly close ranks, as has been well documented on these pages. FM was one of those warned for tendentious editing, but is now in a position of power. The banning for a week because of a commment on a VOTE not an article is just proof that he should not be an Admin. Your comments here seem highly self-serving, which should make one wonder about your own suitability, if Wiki desires credibility as an objective and fair encyclopedia.

OK, I hereby officially complain about FM and all the others warned about tendentious editing, and request that they are no longer allowed to ban editors on Sarfati-related articles. I also request that someone so involved on one side of the debate like JoshuaZ is not allowed to ban an opponent unless there is a clear Wikirule violation as opposed to merely for editing this article. I also propose that this one-sided ban is rescinded. (someone more familiar with the bureaucratic procedures can make this more official. Otheus?) 60.242.13.87 01:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Article condensation

I am a big fan of conciseness and keeping article size low when possible. IMNSHO, Encyclopedaec articles ought to concentrate on salient and notable facts as opposed to non-notable, on footnoting reference material as opposed to quoting every single supporting statement. Recently, user/admin JoshuaZ made some heavy condensations. In principle, I'm not opposed, but I rv'd these for three important reasons:

1. Sarfati's "controversial" writings have made him a prominent figure (at least in some circles, and presumably more in AUS and NZ than in the US)
2. Sarfati does not "hold back" his personal views and expresses them rather openly (AFIK). This makes his views, at least those about public topics, very very public
3. Some of the things JoshuaZ left on the cutting floor would appear to cast Sarfati in a more progressive, and pro-family light, balancing out his more "reactionary" views concerning morality. For instance, his views on abortion might be considered reactionary, while his views on racism (which were cut out) would lead one to think he is more than a knee-jerk reactionary.

Not a bad point, Otheus. Looking at some earlier edits, some of them tried to paint him as a gay-hater, yet Sarfati has strongly denounced the real gay-hater Fred Phelps.58.162.2.122 14:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I propose a lighter-handed knife be used to clean up the article. Community comments welcomed. --Otheus 09:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That seems right. In fact looking through JoshuaZ's edits, he is good at making sure that his ideological allies like Dawkins are pared of criticism, while he goes out of his way to dig up dirt on his ideological opponents.211.30.143.246 14:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Otheus, if you have reliable sources that indicate that other people are talking about Sarfati's views I'd be happy to have them in in detail(I'm actually tempted to only include his viewpoints that have resulted in notable responses of some form). As to which parts I removed, I removed the racism one since it was more of an apologetic argument than a political point. Also, I think on the whole the views I removed were balanced- for example, I removed the comment on torture (which IMO, was one of the more crazy things he said). Now, it may be my own politicla biases coming into play, but his view on abortion actually seemed to me to be one of the most sensible things he has said. So I guess there is a fair bit of perspective issues here. JoshuaZ 18:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I feel quite let down that Joshua has found something by Sarfati he finds sensible ;)58.162.2.122 14:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Just remember, simply because you're paranoid doesn't mean that we're not all out to get you. ;) --Otheus 14:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

JoshuaZ, I'm glad you responded. You know, I don't think there's a right answer here. We're both trying to improve WP here, but it's not clear which direction makes it better. My biases too are coming into play here, specifically my perception of where the "middle line" is to be drawn in order to maintain "balance". Since I've been watching this article for several months, I think I'm in a good position for feeling out where that middle line is, but maybe not as good as others'. So, I respectfully propose that you migrate the copious amounts of supporting material into footnotes/references and simply condense the topics he addressed. Then wait to see what happens.

PS, I wondered what other articles out there might mirror this one. I suggest Ann Coulter on the right, and Noam Chomsky on the left. Any others?

--Otheus 19:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think a fundamental problem with using Coulter or Chomsky is that almost every statement they have ever said has been picked up and discussed by a variety of media sources. That isn't the case for Sarfati. Now, maybe someone in NZ or Oz can point us to where his stuff has been discussed by others, but it is very hard to see it as that notable without it being discussed in reliable sources. JoshuaZ 20:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. But does that extend to all topics, outside evolution, chemistry, and chess? *scratching head* --Otheus 22:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you expand on what you mean? Does what extend? JoshuaZ

Okay, we were trying to come to some general consensus on which kind of statements that Sarfati makes that should and should not be in the article. In response, you said, "it is very hard to see ["this stuff"] as that notable without it being discussed in reliable sources." Presumably, you mean by "this stuff" the stuff you originally deleted from the article, which I rv'd. And presumably, "this stuff" does not include his comments on chess, chemistry, and evolution/creationism. So my question then, is, should "this stuff" include *everything* he says, outside chess, chemistry, evolution/creationism? --Otheus 18:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it should. I wouldn't object to removing all his other views, but I'm not sure we'd get a consensus from other editors to do so. JoshuaZ 03:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

As has been pointed out before, his books on Christian apologetics have outsold many of the atheist apologists on this site, like Sam Harris. It is also notable that Harris' hero-worshippers quickly chop out any criticism, while his ideological allies go out of their way to insert muckraking into this article.58.162.2.122 03:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan, that isn't relevant. A book could sell 10^9 copies and without any reliable sources about the book we can't talk about it. Not to worry though, your books have been talked about a little and as you may notice that's included in the article. Since your books are about evolution issues where you might be relevant, including some info about them makes sense. JoshuaZ 03:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Joshua, who I am isn't relevant. And your definition of "reliable" excludes Christian sources.58.162.2.122 07:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't do anything of the sort. Please read our guideline for source reliability. JoshuaZ 02:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be silly to pretend that Sarfati is not also known for creationist views. A lot of skeptics certainly cite him for this! In any case, it is a fact that his books have sold X many copies, a number which is notable in itself. IIRC, AiG said that Refuting Evolution was their best seller, and the best seller in a topic covered by Wiki is surely notable.60.242.13.87 08:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you cite independent, reliable sources that discuss Sarfati's creationist views? I can't find anything other than some minor critics. And no, a best seller for a specific organization is not automatically notable. What matters for notability is being able to write a non-trivial amount based on reliable sources. If we can't do that, it doesn't matter. Again, it could seell 10^9 or 10^12 copies and without any reliable sources discussing that, it isn't notable. JoshuaZ 19:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

JZ, I think you are confusing something here. In discussing Sarfati, we can use a book he's written, citing it as a primary source, even if this book is not notable. In fact, we can use any book as a reliable source, whether or not that book is widely published or not (some exception may apply to self-published books). Whether the book is notable and has been written up using reliable sources is a factor in deciding whether the book should or should not have an article. If I'm mistaken in this, and you have the time, please cite the policy section. Thanks. --Otheus 19:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No you are correct. I didn't say what I was trying to say well. To explain in more detail, part of the point of the notability policy is that with only the primary source it is hard to say much that isn't original research. JoshuaZ 19:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Any Comments for Improvement?

I just wanted to reiterate my request if there was anyone (banned or not) that think the current article is unfair or unbalanced in any way, or (separately) if it needs significant improvement in style, etc.

--Otheus 12:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, if you insist!  :-)

There is a sentence under "Criticism" which says the following:

...Reed A. Cartwright and Dr Douglas L. Theobald have commented on Sarfati's views on vestigial organs, noting that his doctorate was in physical chemistry, not biology and that his understanding of vestigial organs is lacking.

Now this is worded as though Cartwright and Theobald's comments are correct ("noting", rather than "claiming" or similar). The first point is a statement of verifiable fact (that Sarfati's doctorate was in physical chemistry), but the second (that his understanding of vestigial organs is lacking) is an opinion, so should be referred to as their claim, or allegation, or something along those lines.

Philip J. Rayment 13:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Done, although you might not like what I did with it. The TO reference rebuts Sarfati, though I personally think they throw sand in the readers eyes. Sarfati says that some biologists have changed the definition of vestigal to mean "changed or reduced in function", but the TO authors say that vestigal has always meant "without or reduced in function". I detect a small, subtle change here, and I'm confused as to why the authors do not see it. It could be that in context, Sarfati misunderstood what vestigal has meant to biologists, but I'm going to be lazy and not look that up.

Now this whole thing about academic pissing contests, "You don't know squat about X because your PhD is in Y" rankles me. First, there's the irony of Sarfati, a physical chemist, claiming that evolutionists keep downgrading what is meant by vestigal. Then you have biochemist and geneticist rebutting that claim. While biochemists and geneticists are certainly closer to biologist than physical chemists, I find it highly distasteful that they use this to insinuate that Sarfati doesn't know what he's talking about. Further ironically, the authors go on to define vestigal organs "regardless of popular misconception".

--Otheus 17:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point, Otheus. Maybe your objectivity can be trusted more than I thought. It should have been obvious that "noted" was making a POV claim of accuracy in this note, but for a long time, Sarfati's critics insisted on leaving it in, and banning anyone who disagreed. 58.162.2.122 09:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not completely happy with this one. Although they are basically correct. Biologists (and actually geneticists too(which makes one of them being a geneticist maybe relevant) use vestigial in the sense they are using. The issue is that some medical doctors generally use it in the way that Sarfati uses it since that defintion is one that matters for medical purposes. JoshuaZ 02:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems that both sides can produce support for the way they use "vestigial". So it is hardly fair to argue, as the critics do, "my dictionary is better than yours, so you don't know what you're talking about." It seems perfectly in order for a creationist like Sarfati to claim that if an organ has a function, it is compatible with design theory, even if other people want to claim that "vestigial" means that it is reduced in function.60.242.13.87 08:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

But that's not what he seems to be claiming (from the quote, maybe not the whole context). It matters because Sarfati seems to be accusing the evolutionists of changing the definition to suit the evidence. (And actually, there is nothing wrong with that, as its done all the time.) It matters because Sarfati is trying to debunk the theory of evolution, which does not claim that a vestigal organ would have no function, as cited by the critics. So both sides can produce a definition, but only one definition matters in this dispute. --Otheus 19:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

More likely, the article in question was deflecting an evolutionary attack on creation, by pointing out that if an organ has a function, then why couldn't it have been designed that way? 58.162.2.122 09:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)