Talk:Jonathan Sarfati/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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)

He works for CMI not AiG.60.242.13.87 01:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Now he does. Any notability related to creationism occured when he was with the original AIG. JoshuaZ 01:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

He is still with the same employer. They simply changed their name (from Answers in Genesis (Australia) to Creation Ministries International (Australia)). Your opinion would be more accurately put as Any notability related to creationism occurred when CMI was using the AiG name. Philip J. Rayment 03:17, 15 March 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. [1][2]

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."[3]

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)

My unreserved apology for accusing JZ of inserting the torture comment still stands. But note the above where he tries to defend it, and I must have conflated the various anti-Sarfati block-happy admins in my mind as to who precisely did what.58.162.2.122 22:57, 15 March 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)

"Tantamount to supporting torture" sounds like your own reasoning to me. I just read Wikipedia:attribution, and it specifically forbids drawing your own conclusions. You must rather say that (blank) said it was tantamount to torture.

I believe the usual argument goes like this:

• Rough interrogation involves causing disorientation and fear, as well as temporary discomfort (such as stress positions.
• These things are obnoxious in the same way as torture is
• Torture and rough interrogation differ only in degree, not type.
• Therefore, rough interrogation is tantamount to torture.

As an editor, I can understand the reasoning process. But I cannot just stick that in an article. Stuff like this is too 'deep' and requires a citation to a (non-Wikipedian) source. --Uncle Ed 05:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and wasn't arguing it should be kept in the article - just trying to explain why it couldn't stand: We have no evidence he believes torture happens in Guantamano Bay, and without that, it is original research to say he supports torture, even if torture is happening there, as I believe. Now, a phrase like "He supports the controversial Guantanamo Bay detention camp." would be fine, and cite-supported. Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitray un-indent:

No, even a phrase like "supports the controversial ... camp" isn't very encyclopedic. When talking about US soldiers in Iraq, what does "support the troops" mean?

We should be more specific, like "supports the detention of (blank) at ... camp" so that readers won't think he supports (1) rough interrogation or (2) torture. When we refer to gitmo prisonors, I'd rather we said that Sarfati "supports their detention". 

Likewise, when someone says they "oppose gitmo", our readers will want to know whether:

1. They want the whole camp shut down and all prisoners released
2. They think prisoners are being tortured, and they (like just about everyone else in the Western world) oppose torture
3. They think rough interrogation is unethical on the grounds that it is 'a form of torture', or even
4. They support the detention of the prisoners, but want them to have the same Geneva rights as POWs have, on the grounds that the "unlawful combatant" designation is incorrect legally or ethically. --Uncle Ed 12:50, 19 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.

Worse, they decided that AA and others who don't share their antipathy against Sarfati and what he stands for were not even allow to make reasonable edits. The likes of Joshua arrogantly demand that after they make slanderous remarks about torture, we are verboten to correct, but most go cap in hand to our opponents, "Pretty please sir, I don't agree with that; please sir, could it be changed back? Three bags full sir.58.162.2.122 13:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

Not an issue. If it is not even agaisnt any guideline to edit one's own article, then it wouldn't matter who AA was. A number of editors (not including a cabal of 5-6 admins) agreed that her edits were very good and her points were valid.58.162.2.122 13:20, 14 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)

No, daring even to complain about Admins. And the ArbComs protected their own, with a token warning.58.162.2.122 13:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Great, you've successfully evaded my question: I don't remember the question anymore. Point for you! --Otheus 02:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I've forgotten too! 58.162.2.122 14:37, 15 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.

From what I saw, AA pointed out various infractions like inserting material that was not properly sourced, and original research, as well as pointing out tendentious editing. Her case was clearly strong enough to result in a number of admins being warned. So the burning question is, why were they let off only with a warning while AA was banned for life??60.242.13.87 02:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there was copious documentation.58.162.2.122 13:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm still somewhat new and haven't figured out how to get to stuff that isn't linked to. Can you help me find it again, Please? I can't really change my opinion until I look at more than just the RfAr summaries and statements. --Otheus 02:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It's easy to lose track of who said what, that's for sure. An unfair blocking policy certainly doesn't help, because it just leads to talk pages being filled up, when it would be much easier to edit the article in question.58.162.2.122 14:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

Surely the main point here is that the ruling was unjust and needs to be rescinded if Wiki desires credibility. If the prosecution's verdict was weak (and people like Durova didn't seem to agree), note that Philip Rayment pointed out that the prosecution was relatively inexperienced while the defence had a lot of admins, and was being tried by fellow admins. Really, it's like a person trying to take on a lawyer who defrauded him, and is trying to represent himself in court against the lawyer's high-power legal eagles, and before a judge who came from the same legal fraternity. If the ruling was unjust, the remedy is to overturn it rather than blame the loser for alleged poor preparation of the case.60.242.13.87 02:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

And surely what matters in the end is whether a verdict was right. If a wrong verdict was reached, then blame the system for reaching it, and do something about the injustice! 60.242.13.87 05:39, 14 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 [4] 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.

And this is just the point that severely rankles a lot of us here, e.g., 58, Philip Rayment, that this ban enforcement by admins who have been warned cannot be seen to be just.60.242.13.87 02:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

As 58 pointed out, they saw enough to warn the other parties against tendentious editing. If they are cops, then to continue the legal analogy, then they have shown to be corupt cops, so should be kept on desk duty, rather than being allowed to arrest those who complained against them. 60.242.13.87 02:03, 14 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)

Answered above on 00:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC) 58.162.2.122 13:20, 14 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)

I must respectfully disagree with your defence of the admins. From my own experience, Vaknin's assessment is far closer to the mark.58.162.2.122 13:20, 14 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)

Methinks Joshua "Sarfati supports torture" Z doth protest too much against 58's claims. It is also hardly surprising that this user thinks that Wiki is unfairly run, given one-sided punishments whereby one side can ban their ideological opponents merely for editing an article. Vaknin seems to be spot on in his assessment of Wiki admins, when they can break rule and be slapped with a wet bus ticket, while their opponents are banned.60.242.13.87 01:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Legal attack? Sounds very hyperliteralist to me, which is quite a change from your original research re "torture". Some terms have common meanings as well as legal ones. If I wanted to be legal, I would have accused you of libel.58.162.2.122 13:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note, JoshuaZ did not "insert" statements regarding torture into this article. What he did do was revert an unexplained revert by an anonymous IP user. The insert was done by a certain "Boofalah36" which can all but be proven not to be a sockpuppet of JZ. (Please note the torture diff and JZ's activity during this time. JZ was leaving messages on various talk pages at the exact time that the torture comment appeared.) In fact, JZ removed the torture edit here. Note, I actually restored that edit because it had removed sentiments which might show JS in a positive light. So venom directed at JZ for insertion of torture is plainly incorrect, and unless you are really willing to substantiate otherwise, any more accusations of such a nature would fall under violation of WP:NPA. --Otheus 02:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You are right, and I unreservedly apologise. 58.162.2.122 14:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, s---. I need a stiff drink. --Otheus 16:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, JoshuaZ did not even do that. Unless I've missed something, he never even reinserted the torture bit. There was a brief edit war (history) in which three different editors (including one anonymous editor) took out the offending words (with explanation in the first instance) and it was reinserted by three different editors, which included two of the administrators warned against edit-warring! And without real explanation. See also my summary of this above, in the second post of the #Alleged Support of torture section. Philip J. Rayment 14:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

And one of them is the most block-happy of the lot of them. They richly deserve the venom that I wrongly misdirected at the non-warned albeit block-happy JoshuaZ who was totally blameless in this case.58.162.2.122 15:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

THAT DOES IT! I'm going to see the doctor. No, a shrink. Before too long, I'll start hallucinating that I can win an entire argument. ;) --Otheus 16:50, 15 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[5] 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)".

There seems no comment on this point. Otheus seems to have made an error in fact about what the ban means (and note that making an error doesn't mean he is not trying to be objective, OK).60.242.13.87 02:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this one (among others; it's getting very hard to figure out what's new). Anyway, I don't think I made a mistake about what the ban means. It was a ban from editing this article "and related articles", which means "don't edit them again or you will be blocked (from further editing altogether)". She was free to edit unrelated articles. --Otheus 08:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

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 (in the colloquial and non-legal sense) 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)[6]. I removed it[7], and it was reinstated by an anonymous editor[8]. It was removed again by another editor [9], and reinstated by one of the editors named in that ArbCom ruling[10]. It was removed again by an anonymous editor[11], and reinstated by another of the editors named in that ArbCom ruling[12]. 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.

So what is to be done about this? FM was already warned for tendentious editing. Will he be likewise slapped with a wet noodle for abusive blocking? Or are admins immune from punishment for their actions?58.162.2.122 12:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

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.

FM is now punishing people for dissent.60.242.13.87 01:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Enforcing an arbcomm ruling against chronic abusers of the system and project is hardly "punishing people for dissent". And BTW, please stop making baseless accusations and trying to stir up support on various user talk pages; it is disrupting the project and considered a form of personal attack. Please be mindful that you are very close to being considered by a number of admins I've spoken to subject to the same ruling based on your behavior. FeloniousMonk 04:06, 19 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)

Nonsense. WP:OR is for unpublished facts, etc. or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material. Quoting Sarfati's book as a primary source is allowed. 58.162.2.122 03:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but then you run into copyright violations. That's the difficulty with primary sources. Paraphrase, and its possibly OR. Quote,Excessively quote and it's copyright violation. Is that right, JZ? --Otheus 06:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Only if an editor exceeds lawful allowances. JZ has asked repeatedly for 'independent, reliable sources that discuss Sarfati's creationist views', but the article already includes Talkorigins.org, NCSE, and PZ Myers as critical POV (any neutralising citations are quickly obliterated by certain admins). It certainly appears that JZ won't be happy until the article is either heavily critical or deleted. 58.162.2.122 07:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I changed my remark above to "Excessively quote".

Actually, I think JZ has conceeded by now the point that JS is notable enough, at least for his chess (and maybe too, now, on his creationist views). He might not like the fact that JS is popular, but I think JZ has to admit that, at least in Australia/NZ, he is popular for his creationist viewpoints. JZ also proposed that the entire section on Sarfati's views, outside chess and chemistry, be deleted. I'm waiting for someone to 2nd that opinion before I act on consensus. --Otheus 10:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I think he's notable for chess, he's arguably notable for creationism, there is no indication that his views on politics or other religious matters are notable. Also, the concern isn't so much copyright violations(there is that as well) but a simple issue of whether the views matter. To use an extreme example- we might still have documentation about Gregor Mendel's personal political views, if no one has written about those views then we have no reason to quote them on Wikipedia. Also, note that when quoting exclusively from primary sources, deciding which parts to quote and which not to (based on what is important or representative) almost universally involves original research. JoshuaZ 15:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I erred in talking about Sarfati's views. I should have said writings. And that's where the debate originally lies -- are his writings notable. And I'm afraid here we run into the 10-foot-pole problem you have with Creation science -- namely, "no one notable" wants to touch it with one, other than shock, Chritistian sources, which upon over-analysis, are either non-notable or not reliable. So unless someone can find his writings referenced from independent, objective, reliable, non-blog sources, we should (a) leave them all in as-is, (b) take them all out. JZ, would you agree I have correctly summarized the debate? --Otheus 16:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Not precisely, we have a few minor comments from reliable sources about the creation science, so I'm fine leaving that in- however, that doesn't apply to the political views and such where we don't even have that semblance of notability (nor for that matter do we even have any Christian sources talking about Sarfati's political views). I would also disagree with your 10 foot pole comment, in that one has many independent reliable sources about Ken Ham,Henry Morris, Kent Hovind, Sarfati simply hasn't made as large a dent as some of the other major young earth creationists (if I had to speculate as to why, I'd suspect it would have something to do with Sarfati having a brain, but the cause isn't relevant). JoshuaZ 18:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It might be because he is Australian/New Zealander rather than American. Please don't take this as an attack on Americans, but really, there seems to be a lot of parochialism in this country. 60.242.13.87 01:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree that what Sarfati is alleged to have written on blogs or Theology Web is hardly notable. But if AiG is considered notable enough for an article, then the author of their best selling book, according to their catalogue, presumably is as well. So it would be rather ostrich-like to cut out his creationist viewpoint. 60.242.13.87 01:57, 19 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)

Archiving

How do we archive this thing? Say, everthing up to #Gerald Joyce the faithless skeptic would suffice I think. --Otheus 02:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. I simply accepted your suggested sections (including Gerald Joyce). Philip J. Rayment 04:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Civility, decorum and working together

Please let's not accuse one another of abuses of power here. Let's just talk about how to improve the article. If any contributor, even an anonymous one, feels that another contributor is abusing their admin powers, this is not the right place to bring it up.

Of course, if you're new here you might not know this. But now you do. Admins are well aware that they must not use their position or power to gain an advantage in a content dispute, but specific instances are not within the purview of this page. Try the admin's own user talk page, or go the "third party" route. If that doesn't work, there's always 'request for comment', 'request for mediation' & 'request for arbitration'. But squabbling here isn't going to do any good. --Uncle Ed 04:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Who is he?

• a chess champion
• an author of creationist or "anti-evolution" books

Which is more important? I'm not sure, but many of our reader (and contributors!) are interested in the creation-evolution debate, so we should mention his books and not just his chess playing. --Uncle Ed 13:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Uncle Ed, you've put in the article that he's the "author of three creationist books which disagree with the National Academy of Science’s Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science." Now it's true that he's authored three books (and contributed to others), and that all three are opposing evolution, in a general sense at least. However, only the first was specifically aimed at the National Academy's publication. The second was aimed at the PBS television series on evolution, and the third aimed at Christians who compromise with long ages and evolution. Philip J. Rayment 14:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have supplied a citation for that. I was quoting Amazon:

• Editorial Reviews - Book Description
• A creationist response to the National Academy of Science’s Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science. [13]

I combined two ideas here:

1. He wrote 3 books (and is thus an "author" of them)
2. Those books 'responded to' (or "disagreed with" in my words) the National Academy of Science’s Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science

Is there a better way to phrase this? --Uncle Ed 14:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

He's not just an author of creationist books but a notable creationist, which needs to be mentioned in the intro. He's more notable as a creationist than a chess master, author or any other category as Google results show. 151.151.21.100 15:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Please supply references for this evaluation. I think you're right, but this idea requires Wikipedia:attribution. --Uncle Ed 15:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You're joking right? Or are you just being obstructive? The article's second sentence states quite plainly "He works for Creation Ministries International (CMI), formerly part of Answers in Genesis (AiG), a non-profit Christian apologetics ministry specializing in Young-Earth creationism. He is the author of Creation science articles and three books on the subject; Refuting Evolution (1999), Refuting Evolution 2 (2002), and Refuting Compromise (2004)." 151.151.73.166 15:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite serious, and I'm trying to help you. If you give a ref for his notability as a creationist, then other contributors will be less likely to revert you there.

In case you didn't notice, I called him an "author of three creationist books" and that got reverted. Let's work together on this. Please find a verifiable source who says that his books were "creationist" ones. (It's not OR to count them up and then say he wrote "three creationist books". We just need a ref which calls the books creationist.) --Uncle Ed 16:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. Both sides of the creationism debate think he's a notable creationist: His employer Creation Ministries International is just one of many creationist sites that considers him a notable enough creationist to list him as a creationist in his bio: Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati - Creationist Physical Chemist and Spectroscopist EvoWiki lists as a him and has a bio: Category:Creationists, EvoWiki. 151.151.21.100 17:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Notability

I haven't read Wikipedia:Notability lately, but what question are we trying to answer here?

1. Are his books important enough to merit having a biographical article about him at all?
2. Are his books considered secondary source material we can cite in biology articles?

Upon first glance, it would seem that he's prominent enough to mention his books. He seems to have sold quite a few.

But in my personal opinion, he does not appear to be a 'recognized authority' on biology. Hundreds of people have Ph.D. degrees and disaree with evolution, but that doesn't make their opinions relevant in a field where 99.8% of scientists all support one theory. But he would be worthy of mention in an article about "people who disgree with mainstream biologists about evolution". --Uncle Ed 14:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It depends on who he is considered to be "recognised" by. His training is not in biology, so he can't be said to be recognised for that. But as a scientist working full time for a creationist organisation, and speaking and writing about the subject, he's become an expert on the whole creation/evolution issue, in whatever fields, and (in certain circles at least) he is recognised for that. That particular description does not apply to hundreds of others. Whether all that makes him prominent enough is a matter of opinion, and that opinion is frequently influenced by how one feels about the creation/evolution debate (and that works both ways). Philip J. Rayment 14:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Mind ye, he's a (relatively) minor creationist. Not at the notability level of, say, Behe, Dembski, etc. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That's why I don't want to identify him as "a creationist" per se but as as an "author of three creationist books". I even supplied a ref for that.

I suppose I could go ahead and undo the reversion, but a little bird told me this page has had some edit wars, so I'm trying to set an example of 0RR here.

I just saw Music and Lyrics last night, and it convinced more than ever of the importance of phrasing something precisely. It also illustrates how much time and effort go into writing 4 lines!

Anway, I'd like us to work together here, and the 'creationist' thing seemed like a good place to start. --Uncle Ed 16:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure. Since this page came to my attention, I've noticed one or two mentions of him elsewhere, at the same time as seeing hundreds of references to Dembski, Behe, etc. (I'm a biology major, and read a lot of biology-related news sources and blogs) Mind you, he's Australian, so he might be more important there? Still, though, I'd like to see a few significant references to him in, say, major newspapers, if possible, as that would probably clinch it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thinking while I'm typing here. This probably qualifies as original research, but I'm putting it on the talk page, not the article, so that's okay.

I would think that Sarfati is better known than Dembski, etc. here in Australia. But that's more of a gut feeling than anything. If true, it would probably mean that Dembski is more "notable" (if by that we mean better known), if for no other reason than there are a lot more people in America than Australia.

The main point I want to make, though, is that I gather that Dembski has a very (relatively speaking) public presence, promoting his ideas through the media and the court system. CMI, in contrast, has always promoted its message primarily in the Christian arena, such as in churches. Thus the CMI speakers do not have the same level of recognition among the general public as people from the Discovery Institute. It's even feasible that they are just as well known as each other, but in different groups (e.g. Dembski by 20% of the general population, Sarfati by 80% of the Christian population which itself makes up 25% of the total population).

So if we are measuring notability by how well known they are, Dembski wins over Sarfati. But is that really a valid measure of "notability"? If two people are doing the same job to the same extent, but one is working publicly and the other behind the scenes, does that make the former more "notable"? I suppose according to Wikipedia criteria it does, and perhaps that's a shortcoming of the criteria.

Regardless of the above, I support the comments by 151.151.73.166 (although not the way he reacted to Uncle Ed) above that he is more notable as a creationist than as a chess champion, given that he works for a creationist organisation and writes extensively and speaks frequently for them.

Philip J. Rayment 08:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Accused of SSP and other things

As some of you know, a checkuser case on me has been filed, listing me as a possible sockpuppet of IP users banned from editing this article. Also, some admins have deleted my research which I was compiling on the old AA case. Until these issues are resolved, I will not be editing the article or partaking in this Talk page. --Otheus 19:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The checkuser was rejected. (Duorva and I have appealed the rejection, but I'm not holding my breath.) If anyone acts as if I am a sock-puppet (of users banned from this article), that person is assuming bad faith, and I will strongly consider filing an RfC against such a person. --Otheus 21:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've just picked up on that in the last couple of days. Pity I didn't get to see the evidence page before it got deleted, but at least the AfD page remains, showing that three of the five votes to delete were from editors who were subject to that ArbCom ruling. I'll keep watching with interest. Philip J. Rayment 14:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I asked 4 of those users for their rational in (a) voting for its deletion and (b) determining the page was an attack page. You see, an "attack page" if done in good faith and composed in the preparation of, for instance, a request to review the ArbCom ruling, is allowed. Anyway, only Jim62sch was kind enough to give me an answer, which amounted to "it looked like an attack page". Neither FM, SlimVirgin, nor ElinorD responded. --Otheus 21:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)