Talk:Jonathan Sarfati/dispute

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

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

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

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

The content issues that agapetos angel wanted to raise seem more or less to have been settled, and the non-content aspects of the dispute are before the arbcom, so I'd say there's probably no further need for this page, and it might be best to continue posting on Talk:Jonathan Sarfati instead. Thank you to everyone who took part in the dispute resolution, and who made suggestions for compromise or found sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Others

1. "Sarfati is widely believed to be responsible for the theologyweb internet troll "Socrates".

It is very poor form for anyone, and even poorer form for admins, to keep adding this, although this claim was first inserted by a troll and rejected in Talk:Jonathan Sarfati/archive1#Unsupported allegation removed. Note also, "it is widely believed" are weasel words expressly verboten by the rules, and there is no acceptable source, as opposed to internet rumour-mongering. (an unsigned comment from User:220.245.180.133 --FeloniousMonk)

Any editor may challenge any edit by asking for a credible, published source. In the case of an Internet troll, it's not clear what a credible, published source would amount to (the New York Times has probably not written about it), so my inclination would be to remove the claim. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

While I'm inclined to agree for now, there must be some standard where such information could be included. Your argument leads to a general inability to talk about specific internet trolls on Wikipedia. (Incidentally, I'm attempting to find out more about the Socartes claim, but so far have found very little that is reliable). JoshuaZ 01:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

From talkorigins.org: Dr. Sarfati posts at TheologyWeb under the screen name "Socrates" with the habit of referring to himself in the third person. Good enough? Guettarda 01:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the website, Guettarda, or who Dave Moore is. The benchmark for what counts as a credible source is whether there is any form of third-party fact checking or editing, as there is with a newspaper or a book publisher. If there isn't, the website counts as a self-published source, and may be used as a source of information about itself, but may not be used as a third-party source i.e. as a source of information about anyone else. See WP:V. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Slim, [1] lists talkorigis.org myriad awards and acknowledgements. They are pretty reliable. JoshuaZ 03:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Joshua. It seems it's a Usenet newsgroup, which means we can't use it as a source. See WP:RS#Bulletin_boards_and_posts_to_Usenet. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

talk.origins is a usenet group. talkorigins.org is an organization which has some connections to the usenet group. However, the talkorigins.org is respected(as should be obvious from some of the awards). JoshuaZ 03:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Respected by whom? AiG has won awards too. But using TO is really like using the GOP website as the primary source on a Democrat, for example. (220.'s comment)

Please see the above award page. Anyways, note that we are merely putting in that many claim that Sarfati is is Socrates, so bias of TO is not very relevant. And if you do want to argue about awards, does AiG have any awards that aren't christian in nature? JoshuaZ 14:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It'd certainly be reasonable to use the GOP website as a source on a Democrat, characterising it as the view of a known opponent, especially if it was the most prominent and reputable source available for a widespread criticism. I'm sure that when the t.o.o article gets written, AiG's viewpoint will feature prominently. This isn't wikinfo, let's not confuse NPOV and SPOV. Alai 18:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

But not to use the GOP as a source for an internet rumor. 203.213.77.138 03:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

PS - the text in question does not allege that he is Socrates, just that he is believed ot be Socrates. Guettarda 01:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Good enough for me, although I'm curious as to why talkorigins.org is convinced of this. JoshuaZ 01:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Probably because Socrates' profile on theology web (registration required) describes him as follows:

Location: Australia

Interests: Creation, apologetics

Occupation: Scientist

Guettarda 02:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, that is hardly convincing. On the internet people claiming to be scientists seem to be quite common. More interestingly if you look at the writing style of Socrates, it is very similar to Sarfati which is very similar to 220.*. Hmm...

We've moved very far off of what this page is supposed to be for, mainly because of me. I apologize for that. Similarities in writing style of the three should probably be moved to the main talk page. JoshuaZ 02:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this has moved a bit off. Talk.Origins is most variable in quality, and the sourced comment is stating a rumour as if it were a fact. Wiki should concentrate on facts not rumours.220.245.180.133 08:28, 16 February 2006

(UTC)

Talk.origins.org is very credible in this context. It's not the Usenet group but its sister website, which is very widely cited on the web. It's as credible, I think, as any website. In any case, it's a source for saying that something is believed to be the case, not that it is the case. So long as we say who believes it, this is a nonissue.Grace Note 13:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The source has to be in some way credible, either the writer or the publication. If you can find an example of a credible publication citing Talk.Origins (a newspaper using it as a third-party source, for example), that would help, but as it stands, neither the writer nor the website look as though they're subject to any fact-checking process, so we can't use them. Saying that "X is the case" or that "A believes X to be the case" makes very little difference: we would still be repeating gossip started by a source we have no way of knowing is reliable. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The source only has to be credible in as far as what it claims, Slim, and within the context for the claim. The "fact" that is in question is whether people believe Sarfati is an internet troll. Being "credible" can mean "cited by a reputable source", yes, but it is not a necessary condition. Something can also be credible when it is readily demonstrated. I know you don't like interwebnet resources' being used as sources, but they are not actually usually inferior to local newspapers, for example, which are often quoted, or magazines. You have to measure the source contextually. On the subject of trolling -- something newspapers rarely cover, and not something journalists are particularly interested in writing about, but which is the subject of a great deal of attention on the interwebnet -- you have to consider different sources. Not to do so restricts Wikipedia to a particular worldview (that of journalists), which is overly exclusive in my view (because certain things are of interest to journos, and others are not). Talk.origins.org serves as the archive of a corner of the interwebnet, which doesn't get much press but is certainly an active and important part of Sarfati's world (for instance, contributors to talk.origins and associated websites gave evidence in Kitzmiller and other cases, and are often the representatives of the SPOV in discussions with the creationists. It is credible in that context -- in the same way Pitchfork is credible in the context of alternative music, say.

That's not to say that I disagree with the fundamentals of your view. I don't. I simply feel that you are taking what we might call a "Britannica" approach. You want to restrict the "sources" for Wikipedia in a way that is entirely untenable for an encyclopaedia of wide reach. Wikipedia simply wouldn't cover half the things it does if it were restricted to stuff that makes papers that actually have factchecking, or stuff that gets peer-reviewed in journals, and it would be poorer for it. Because we don't want to impoverish it, how we consider sources is important. As usual, JMO and YMMV. Grace Note 00:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems that TO is variable in quality. It seems that Moore is an undergraduate science student. Other lead articles are written by computer programmers, e.g. Mark Isaak. TO may well be referenced with approval in some quarters, but that is because it is the leading site devoted to anti-creationism. 203.213.77.138 03:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I am a member of Theologyweb (PrometheusX303). I posted a thread in the Locker Room under the title Questin about a member[SIC](registration may be required to read it.) I asked Was the member known as Socrates considered a troll? Here are some of the replies I got:

• Short answer, no, he was not a troll or ever considered one. A troll is specific type of forum "personality" and that was not the case here. Dee Dee Warren, site owner
• Not a troll. A blowhard who was easy to anger.
• Mostly, Soc was just a guy. Some people liked him, like Dee Dee I guess, because he was loud, forceful, and conservative. Some people hated him, like Jimmy, I guess, because he was rude, uncompromising, and rarely admitted error. I thought he was funny because he used the word churchian more than dlw used to use the word detente and more often than I mispell things, which is saying something. All and all, troll or not, I miss the guy. he was fun.
• Socrates became quite the internet star. Persistent, er, 'rumours' that he was a prominent member of a particular movement that may or may not be linked to attempts to reconcile science with a literal interpretation of the Bible, led to quite a curiosity value.

In short, although he was a bit agressive, he was not considered a troll. His post count is 6,273, quite high for a troll. His last activity (viewing a thread counts as activity) was October 20th 2005, while his last post was June 22nd 2004. So he is no longer an active member. I hope this information helps. PrometheusX303 16:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

OK

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

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

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

Thanks, AA. I'll take a look tonight and tomorrow. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've done 4, for now, with notes at the bottom for other things I want to address. I am requesting those be left alone so that I can come back to them later. agapetos_angel

1

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

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

D1

Discussion regarding # 1:

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

Also fine with this. JoshuaZ 03:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

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

That's okay too. I'm fine with any version of this that includes the basics (published, peer-reviewed, scientic journals, spectroscopy) and retains the link to the abstracts. It's not the wording; it was the removal of accurate (sourced) facts. agapetos_angel 09:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Are all the papers on spectroscopy? agapetos_angel 09:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It's clearly essential that we say what field he was published in. Grace Note 13:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

We don't need to be super-specific (though equally it doesn't hurt), just so long as it's clear what general area they're in (i.e., physical chemistry, which AFAIK certainly covers it). Alai 20:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I've looked at the five abstracts, and they all describe experimental results obtained by X-ray spectroscopy on various samples of condensed matter.--Stephan Schulz 20:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Not X-ray spectroscopy, and unless he analysed liquids, it would be sufficient to put "solids" rather than "condensed matter".220.245.180.133 09:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

(ri) Then the best avenue might be: 'Sarfati has published papers on Spectroscopy in peer-reviewed scientific journals (Abstracts available on ScienceDirect.com)' (with links) agapetos_angel 23:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Given the information now available, I suggest the following (and, if nobody protests, will put it in): From 1988 to 1995, Sarfati has published several papers on X-ray spectroscopy of condensed matter samples in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Abstracts are available on ScienceDirect.com. --Stephan Schulz 10:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with that Stephen, except to note that it was pointed out that the link giving the search results expires. The link to SD.com should be sufficient, I think. (Abstracts are available on ScienceDirect.com)agapetos_angel 13:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that the results time out, but the search term stayed in. I found that not perfect, but useful... --Stephan Schulz 14:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Having realised that the statement regarding peer-review of the articles was correct, I think AA's suggestion is sufficient. Results that time-out are more of a pain than having to type in the author's name. Jim62sch 21:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

2

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

• Comment: Minor issue on this; 'submission ... which appeared in 1987' reduces this from publication to appearing to be more like a letter to the editor.
  • Recommend: Modification
    • Justification: Meets WP:V and NPOV
      • Suggestion: He also co-authored a "Letters to Nature" submission on high-temperature superconductors which was published when he was 22 (Nature (ISSN 0028-0836), vol. 328, July 16, 1987, p. 233, 234. (Abstract)(PDF file))
  • Alternative Recommendation: Removal with links to PDF and abstract under a new 'Resources' section (or similar title) which would include the AiG source links that I'll address further later. This would ultimately resolve any dispute over whether the guidelines for submission of 'Letters' were different in 1987.
    • Justification: Meets WP:V and NPOV (and MoS ?)

D2

Discussion regarding # 2:

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

Agreed. Publishing in those journals is notable NPOV because of the emphasis on YEC in the article; age is not necessary. agapetos_angel 05:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You're probably right. But I recall something in Australasian Science a while back where much was made of a woman who had a paper published in Nature aged 25.220.245.180.133 08:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I see no problem in adjusting the wording. These are indeed letters to the editor, so far as I'm aware, but having a letter to the editor published in Nature is not like having one published in The Times. The former is more prestigious and I think people realize that. I would agree with leaving out the age. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This is I think this is my wording, but I don't propose to fight to the death for every comma. I don't think they're letters to the editor, but they are indeed called "Letters to Nature". I think the qualification is important as it's not the same as a full-length pub in Nature. "Submission" simply to avoid rep'n of the word "paper", used in the sentence immediately before. Otherwise I don't see what's "reducing" in this. I agree mentioning his age seems unnecessary, people can do the maths. Alai 07:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Letters to peer-reviewed journals often take the form of mini-papers. I just looked up what it costs to buy a Letter to Nature, and it's $30, the same as for any other paper. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Mini-papers to journals often are called "letters" (as in this case), but to describe them as "letters to the editor" would be misleading. The cost of "buying"(!) one category or other of pub does not necessarily equate to the difficulty (or cachet) of being accepted in that category. Alai 08:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

(edit clash with Alai) I've mentioned this before (lost in the talk page), but I do not think there is too much difference between a full length publication (article) and a letter to nature (not to be confusd with correspondance). Both are prestigious. There are usually one or two articles in each issue as opposed to about ten to fifteen letters. A letter is the norm and not really a 'mini-paper'. the mini-papers are called 'communication' or 'brevia', I forget which. David D. (Talk) 08:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Alai that price has nothing to do with quality or prestige in the same way that word count does not. David D. (Talk) 08:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

(clash with previous editors) The change to 'submission ... appeared' was used to indicate, IIRC, that the paper might not have been peer-reviewed. However, Letters to Nature are peer-reviewed as a rule ("The following types of contribution to Nature are peer reviewed: ... Letters ...")[2] agapetos_angel 08:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of any of the points above, a submission of some kind (letter, mini-paper) was published, so there's no harm in using the word "published." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Re: AA, Someone doubts it was peer reviewed? We need to keep this simple. All these clarifications bog down the whole article. Some things are just a given,

He has been published in Nature.

He has had a paper published in Nature.

Neither should be seen as false advertising. David D. (Talk) 08:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Let me find the reference in Talk, but yes, I think that was the objection and reason given for the change. agapetos_angel 08:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The only valid negative point would be that he is a minor author, 3rd or 4th (I don't remember exactly), but that would be nitpicking to the extreme. David D. (Talk) 08:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

(ri)Found it[3]. FM stated 'Not all "Letters to Nature" are peer reviewed' and linked here. I don't see anything in that section that conflicts with this that states they are peer-reviewed. I think the only reason they would not be peer-reviewed would be the obvious one, the paper was rejected. agapetos_angel 08:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not true (FM's comment). ALL published papers in nature are peer reviewed. David D. (Talk) 08:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Right. Just found where FM's objection is refuted further down that same source [4] ("All Articles and Letters published in Nature go through at least one round of review, usually two or three, sometimes more.")agapetos_angel 08:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think FM was right in his interpretation of the link he provided, which clearly implies that not all letters/articles are peer-reviewed, but rather only when "the results seem novel, arresting (illuminating, unexpected or surprising), and that the work described has both immediate and far-reaching implications. The initial judgement [to send the material for peer review] is not a reflection on the technical validity of the work described, or on its importance to people in the same field." [5] Another link provided above clearly states the opposite viz. that all letters/articles are peer reviewed. I'd say it's Nature that has contradicted itself here (or worded one of the sections badly). However, as the issue is whether to use the word "published" (and there's no reason not to), the peer-review issue thankfully doesn't matter. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

My reply to this, SV, will be at the bottom so I don't get lost in the middle here. agapetos_angel 11:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Yes, all this argument obscures the fact that many people have published in nature. However, it does give credability to the claim he had an authentic training as a scientist. Something that I would have doubted before seeing his publication record due to the many shady credentials that are bandied about by other creationists. David D. (Talk) 08:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I suppose another point I would make is that it's a little odd to mention a minor paper (letter, whatever) to Nature that was published in 1987. Adding it to his bibliography is fine, but to mention it in the body of the text looks like a slightly miguided effort to expand scientific credentials. However, that's just my personal feeling. In terms of our content policies, there's no problem with including it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

DD, I'd have liked to think that was covered by his formal academic credentials, though given the stink about Dodgy Doctorates elsewhere, you may be correct in saying that some clarification and emphasis is unwarranted. At any rate, when i say it's not a big deal either way, I don't mean it shouldn't be mentioned, just that it shouldn't end up either horrendously caveated and qualified, or unduly hyped. Alai 09:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

(another edit clash) No insult intended, Alai. I couldn't remember in all the recent fuss who attached which particular wording. I was merely trying to address that the objection was invalid. Also, since YEC is being used in the intro, and the overall argument made in the Scientist section, was to purport that creationists are not real scientists. While there are fakes all over the internet (in every field, I suppose), mention is notable for that reason alone. If there is no problem with including it, and it is verifiable, and notable for the reasons I mention, then I recommend (a version of) the suggestion remains. Agree that it should not be blown out of proportion. agapetos_angel 09:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It might be worth mentioning that talk pages are cached by Google just as articles are, so it's best not to raise issues here that could be interpreted as belittling anyone unnecessarily. He has a PhD from a good university, which means his scholarly credentials are not in doubt. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Unintended. I was attributing, not belittling, the source of the objection. Changed agapetos_angel 09:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I was actually thinking of the "dodgy doctorates" comment. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The point I was making was that his wasn't dodgy (and I make no specific comment as to whose might be, let's just say that there exist documented controversies about some other people's claimed post-nominals). The source might be worth mentioning (I don't recall it being in previously, I may be wrong), lest we instead end up 'protesting too much' about its "realness". Alai 20:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems that all the AiG Ph.D.s (Batten,[6] Sarfati,[7] Walker,[8] Jerlström,[9] Catchpoole,[10] Menton,[11] Mortenson,[12] Lisle,[13] Purdom,[14] White[15], Silvestru[16] and Kruger[17]) earned their doctorates from real universities. So please keep clear of the internet gossip mill.220.245.180.133 09:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I said nothing about AiG doctorates, at all, so I see no reason or basis for your request. I'm amazed noting someone's qualifications are not suspect is proving controversial. That being so, we should go easy on the associated paraphenalia, other than simply noting that source. Alai 18:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully this is resolved now, as it appears that your statement was misread by an AiG "supporter". The doctorates are legit, let's move on. Jim62sch 19:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

(ri) Regarding Nature and peer-review, the points have to be reviewed in context of the entire process. [18]

1. Judgment by editorial staff regarding interest, then decision to submit to peer-review (The first stage for a newly submitted Article or Letter is that the editorial staff consider whether to send it for peer-review.) [19](The judgement about which papers will interest a broad readership is made by Nature's editors, not its referees.)[20])
2. Judgment can be to decline the [author(s)] submission (Many submissions are declined without being sent for review.) [21]
3. ... or to submit to peer-review. (... the decision has been made to peer-review the paper [22])
4. When submitted to peer-review (aka second use of 'submission') "the manuscript is assigned to an editor covering the subject area, who seeks informal advice from scientific advisors and editorial colleagues, and who makes this initial decision. The criteria for a paper to be sent for peer-review are that the results seem novel, arresting (illuminating, unexpected or surprising), and that the work described has both immediate and far-reaching implications. The initial judgement is not a reflection on the technical validity of the work described, or on its importance to people in the same field."[23]
5. After peer-review, a decision letter is sent [24]

Nature states 'Letters' go through peer-review.[25] I don't see a contradition, but rather editor confusion over the word 'submission' being used in two contexts, author(s) submission and peer-review submission. The second usage, which was quoted as the objection, was regarding the latter.agapetos_angel 11:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. FM's link shows only that they are not peer-reviewed when they are rejected at an earlier stage. It seems quite clear that if they're published, they have been reviewed. Grace Note 13:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It not only seems quite clear it IS VERY CLEAR. EVERY published paper is peer reviewed. There is no doubt that many of the submitted papers do not get reviewed but that is irrelevent. As an aside Nature receives about 9000 papers a year for consideration. About 800 of these are published. i don't know how many are NOT peer reviewed but clearly they will not be reviewing ALL 9000, that is the point of the text cited by FM.

I usually agree with FM, i am a biologist and i do not agree with Sarfati's opinions or the politics of creationists. But if we are going to challenge their arguments we need to do it from an objective position. For FM to suggest that Sarfati's published paper in Nature is not peer reviewed is silly and suggests that FM needs to step away from this argument since he is losing his objectivity. David D. (Talk) 17:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Woah, steady on. No need to shout. It's just a manner of expression: "It seems quite clear" is "English English" for "It's perfectly clear". Grace Note 00:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly where does it say all "Letters to Nature" are peer reviewed here? FeloniousMonk 00:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

FM, see "The criteria for a paper to be sent for peer-review are that the results seem novel, arresting (illuminating, unexpected or surprising), and that the work described has both immediate and far-reaching implications. The initial judgement is not a reflection on the technical validity of the work described, or on its importance to people in the same field." Now, if it doesn't satisfy those criteria then it is simply rejected outright, before it gets to peer review. This is standard procedure at many of the more prestigious journals. I believe this is discussed on peer_review. JoshuaZ 00:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a misleading passage, because it's just as easy to read it as saying that only certain papers that look interesting but problematic will be peer-reviewed, but that others that do not look problematic may be published without peer review. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. I'm not saying it wasn't, I'm saying we need something more definitive than that. FeloniousMonk 01:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

This is why i need to shout. How can anyone think that it means some papers may get published without review? You seem to be twisting these words to mean something that is clearly not intended. They say explicitly that the the initial judgement is made by the editors and write "The first stage for a newly submitted Article or Letter is that the editorial staff consider whether to send it for peer-review." They go on "Many submissions are declined without being sent for review." They are not going to send out 9000 papers for review. That would entail 27,000 reviewers. Another reason for this initial cut by the editorial staff is that:

"The judgement about which papers will interest a broad readership is made by Nature's editors, not its referees. One reason is because each referee sees only a tiny fraction of the papers submitted and is deeply knowledgeable about one field, whereas the editors, who see all the papers submitted, can have a broader perspective and a wider context from which to view the paper. "

The quidelines continue "Once the decision has been made to peer-review the paper, the choice of referees is made by the editor" In fact, they are explicit that the worst case scenario is one reviewer when they write "Most papers are sent to two or three referees, but some are sent to more or, occasionally, just to one. " It does not say "some will be peer reviewed" and certainly not that "some are published without peer review". For me, at least, those quidelines are explicit. I really don't see how one could doubt that the all published papers are peer reviewed. David D. (Talk) 03:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

(ri) The statement that 'all Articles and Letters published in Nature go through at least one round of review, usually two or three, sometimes more' is unambiguous; therefore, it would be a mistake to interpret one passage out of context of the whole process. Note this passage on Nature_(journal):

• As with other professional scientific journals, articles undergo peer review before publication, in which other scientists, chosen by the editor for expertise with the subject matter but who have no connection to the research under review, will read and critique articles before publication. However, in the case of Nature, submitted articles undergo an initial screening procedure by the editor. They are only sent for review if it is decided that they deal with a topical subject or are sufficiently ground-breaking in a particular field. As a consequence, the majority of submitted articles are rejected without review. {emphasis added}

A3 outlines process of the initial screening. agapetos_angel 04:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Absolutely. It's wrong for FM to cherrypick one quote from Nature and claim it can be read in a particular (rather perverse) way so we mustn't say letters to Nature are peer-reviewed, when elsewhere there's a clear statement that all letters are reviewed. Grace Note 05:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Rather than bust on one editor, why not note that Nature's explanation could be worded better, as noted by Slim, and just let it go at that. Otherwise, you are starting to wander away from WP:CIVIL, which was part of the point for the creation of this page, was it not? Jim62sch 21:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Grammar notes: I changed "From 1988 to 1995, Sarfati has published several papers on..." to "From 1988 to 1995, Sarfati published several papers on..." as "has" is indicative of a continuing process, and this is berlied by providing a closing date.

For the following: "He also co-authored a "Letters to Nature" submission on high-temperature superconductors which appeared in 1987 in the journal Nature, when he was 22." I would suggest rewording this to, "At age 22, he co-authored a "Letters to Nature" submission on high-temperature superconductors which appeared in 1987 in the journal Nature". The reason being, the current revision basically states that the article appeared when he was 22, not that he wrote it when he was 22, thus creating nebulosity as to when he wrote it (i.e., he could have written it at 18). (emphasis added to show changes, they do/would not be in revision.) Jim62sch 15:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

3

Sarfati is married with one stepson.

• Comment: Attempts made to change do not meet policy
  • Recommend: Retain above version (source)
    • Justification: Change violates Wikipedia:No original research, namely 'material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source'
      • Reasons given: for inclusion appear to be that an editor 'found' it [26]
        • Objection: not linked to subject of article
    • Justification: Change violates Wikipedia:Reliable sources
      • Reasons given: are not readily apparent
        • Objection: "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." [27] Submission to that source is a fill-in web form with no indication that the facts are checked or accurate. Credibility is not met (and in fact, suspect because cache shows recent change of information)

D3

Discussion regarding # 3:

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

• • I agree, Slim. I don't see why it's important to give a nonpublic figure's name in a public figure's biography. It's not important not to, either, in my view, but if it's contested, there should be good reason to continue to include it. Grace Note 13:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I also agree it doesn't seem at all notable, absent any argument as to why it is, and I don't think the source is anything to write home about, either. It would be regretable if this were being done in overreaction to WP:AUTO concerns. If there's objection to the "anonymous family", I don't see any necessity to include any of it. Alai 20:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Leave it out. It is a distraction. David D. (Talk) 20:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

4

Critics and supporters of Sarfati often disagree whether he should be considered a scientist. Young Earth Creationism is considered a pseudoscience by almost all scientists. Supporters argue that his doctorate in physical chemistry qualifies him as a scientist. The creationist website Answers in Genesis to which Sarfati contributes lists many creationists who are active in science (though for work unconnected to creationism), and advises readers that many of the founders of modern science, such as Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell had a general belief in the creator God of the Bible and opposed evolution. [28] A point critics reject as invalid since evolutionary theory was not developed until after many of those listed had died. Sarfati suggests that evolutionary ideas date back at least to Greek philosophers, and these scientists were well aware of them [29]. His view is not widely shared in the scientific community. and these earlier evolutionary ideas were very different from the modern theory. Sarfati's doctorate is in physical chemistry. Some critics question his knowledge in apparently unrelated fields- namely biology and astronomy.

• Comment: Section is a complex, unverifiable mess as it now stands. Have previously recapped objection [30] but will repeat if deemed necessary.
  • Recommend: Removal until revised to meet WP:V
    • Justification: (1) 'The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it' [31]
    • Justification: (2) '... unless the article or information is about a living person, in which case remove the unsourced information' [32]
      • Reasons given: for inclusion appear to vary, but main reason seems to be assertion that sources within the section support the statements as given.
        • Objection: Weasel words and unsourced/unattributed statements are unverifiable, and violate WP:OR because they are editor opinion rather than attributed statements (and WP:NPOV appears violated for the same reason).
          • Additional Comment: Sources within a section does not equal sources that support the section in entirety. Note (again) that I am not objecting to inclusion of similar statements, but that they have to not violate policy.

D4

Discussion regarding # 4:

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

Joshua, I don't know if you meant to imply that I rejected it outright. I said, 'I think it was a good attempt, but still needs work'. I don't want to get into a he said/she said. But I must point out that my objective was always to have the OR removed and the section meet WP:V. I was willing to work with you on the revisions, including suggestions I already gave you on how to proceed from your draft (paragraph that begins "Why the use of 'some critics' (weasel) when you have names?" [33]) agapetos_angel 04:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that you had rejected it outright. That was poor phrasing on my part. Sorry. JoshuaZ 04:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay. No worries. agapetos_angel 05:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The section violates WP:NOR in that it is an unsourced argument. Even if sources could be found for each individual point, the overall thrust of the argument might have to be sourced too, because NOR prohibits the publication of any unpublished synthesis of ideas, where the synthesis is used to advance a particular position. In other words, it would be safer to find someone who had actually made that particular overall point and attribute the position to them, rather than to find sources for each individual part of the argument. Joshua, I suppose it depends on what your sources say. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that this rises to OR; I agree on the weaselly wording and lack of an explicit source. How notable any of his various critics that have levelled such charges, may also be an issue. Alai 08:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Given that a position is being advanced without sources, the paragraph does indeed rise to OR by definition. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

No, OR means that no appropriate primary sources exist, not that they've not been cited. By your definition, 99.9% of wikipedia is "original research". Which is not to say that they shouldn't be cited, which clearly, they should. Alai 08:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

That's not what it means, Alai. If that were the case, we could never call anything OR, because it is never possible to prove that no sources for a particular position exist. All we can do is note that no sources have been produced. Advancing a position without producing sources is to engage in original research. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

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

No it would not, since absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence, if one has troubled to look for the evidence. But isn't, if one has not. Advancing a position without sources isn't verifying that one isn't engaging in OR, but is not in itself determinative that one is. Otherwise, as I say, we'd have to delete 99.9% of WP as being in violation of policy (and ban approximately 100% of the editors for doing so). The distinction is worth making, as OR is often cited (as in this case) for peremptory deletion of poorly sourced/weasel-worded material, as opposed to more systematic reworking of it. At any rate, I must cease splitting hairs and get some sleep, and in any case I'm happy to wait on JZ's offer of redraft in the hopes it's more directly sourced. Alai 09:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I know what you mean, and take your point, but the problem is that this section, or versions of it, have been in the article for months without sources. As soon as a source request was made, it needed either to be sourced or deleted. Just because something can be reworked and sourced so that it's no longer OR, doesn't mean it wasn't OR to begin with, and to distinguish OR from material that is merely unsourced would lead to difficult (and, in fact, irrelevant) questions. If I were to say: "R.M Hare was the kind of professor who made even the humblest of his students feel they had mastered the topic," is this OR or is it simply unsourced? The question is not answerable until a source is found, which means, according to your argument, that we could never definitively declare something to be OR, given that a source could be found at any minute. The point is that when an editor publishes an argument on Wikipedia without first checking that the argument has already been published by a reputable source, then s/he is engaging by definition in original research, even if a published source is later found. But regardless, whether we want to say that the section in question is a violation of NOR or just a violation of V, it's unquestionably a violation of something. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I essentially agree with this; it's not reasonable to leave something unsourced indefinitely, especially where there's been an objection, on the basis of it being sourced "real soon now". As I say, if reasonable search efforts fail to find a suitable source, that is strong evidence that it's OR. (Or if the issue is 'low-grade' sources, that's also problematic.) I must admit to a certain sensitivity to NOR being as a hyperbolic catch-all debating tactic in "removing stuff one doesn't like" disputes, which would often be more usefully be framed in sourcing/V-ing terms, even if the distinction is ultimately moot. Alai 20:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, fair point. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

AA, that's a pretty inaccurate summary in many, many respects. But to confine myself to just one for now: your counterargument here is essentially that, yes, many critics of JS do make this criticism, but you wish to rule them out as themselves being insufficiently notable, and/or on the grounds of the medium of the criticism. Alai 09:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The critics and supporters have to be named, and their criticism/support must have been published in credible publications. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed my comment because I was clashing with SV, and his answer was a better worded version of the same point. agapetos_angel 09:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I'm a she. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. agapetos_angel 10:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

(ri) WP:NOR - 'the only way to verifiably demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the article, and to adhere to what those sources say.' I think that sums up the problem as I see it. agapetos_angel 10:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Reluctantly, although it's clear enough that Sarfati is a scientist who does nonscience (in the same way that other scientists play the piano or are members of a chess club), it's very hard to source because the battle he is engaged in is largely fought online. Slim's point is a good one: it's easy to show that "creation science" is not science -- we could cite Kitzmiller for instance or any one of many scientists who say so; and easy to show that Sarfati engages in "creation science". But the synthesis is novel if we don't source it, even though it's blindingly obvious -- and readily deduced from the premises. Whether the blindingly obvious should be disallowed by WP:NOR is a whole nother question. Grace Note 14:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be more accurate to say, former (working) scientist who does nonscience (both because CS, especially biblical-presuppositional CS, fails the scientific method test, and because JS's activities in the area don't appear to much resemble research of any kind, even ignoring that consideration). Saying he's a scientist in the existential sense, due to having a PhD, is to make that somewhat opaque. But certainly he's fully qualified to "do science", and he wouldn't be the first person to do both real science and pseudo- on a time-spliced basis, were he to do so. If a particle physicist has a sideline in phrenology, he's still a scientist when he's doing work of the first kind (one hopes), and whether he's "a scientist" in some philosophical sense is well worth avoiding. But your basic point is correct: the further we get into the "Sarfati and AiG say he's a 'PhD scientist'/'research scientist', others beg to differ", argument, the more sources will inevitably degrade, so the more briefly we can treat of that whole topic, the better, IMO. Alai 20:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Therefore, in light of the obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it and ... unless the article or information is about a living person, in which case remove the unsourced information, is my point that the section violates policy and should be removed until such time that it no longer violates policy valid? agapetos_angel 23:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it should be removed until a source is found. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Sources will be provided. It's a simple matter. FeloniousMonk 00:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Give FM the time to get the sources. As it is, Sarfati is a scientist to the extent allowable by his previous work. However, it appears based on a ten year plus hiatus from publishing papers on his area of expertise that he is no longer doing that work. As YEC-theory is clearly pseudoscience, it becomes difficult to say that he is presently doing science. In fact, the only assertion that he is doing science comes from his employer, and that assertion is questionable as the clear symbiosis created by the statement precludes any sense of objectivity. Jim62sch 22:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

One might note that if nothing else, the NCSE don't characterise him as a "research scientist", preferring simply "AIG staffer". [34] It might be somewhat useful to juxtapose those, if the t.o.o lot are regarded as an inappropriate source. Alai 00:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

5

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

• Comment: This section was removed
  • Recommend: Retention
    • Justification: WP:CON, a version of this statement has been in the article at least since the unprotect. WP:V (and Wikipedia:Importance, although that isn't policy).
      • Reasons given for exclusion: None, that I found. It was simply removed by FM without discussion. Questioned here twice.
        • Objection: Lack of objection to content
          • Additional Comment: What is 'wrong' with keeping the Ross information, which explains the reason for the most current book that Sarfati authored? The subtitle is A biblical and scientific refutation of ‘progressive creationism’ (billions of years) as popularized by astronomer Hugh Ross[35](; therefore, the teachings should have a very brief mention to clarify why Sarfati wrote the book.

D5

Discussion regarding # 5:

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

• My copy has on the front cover, "A Biblical and Scientific Refutation of "Progressive Creationism" (Billions of Years) As Popularized by Astronomer Hugh Ross".220.245.180.133 08:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• That would settle the matter then. Definitely worth mentioning. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Has a reviewer perhaps suggested he had another purpose? Not that I'm suggesting they have. Grace Note 14:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem'd be here. Perhaps make it clear(er) that this is the publisher's/JS's charactisation of the purpose of the book, not just editorial inference on WP's part. Say, use 220.'s quote directly, rather than in paraphrase. Alai 21:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

(ri) What about saying: "His latest book, Refuting Compromise, is subtitled A biblical and scientific refutation of ‘progressive creationism’ (billions of years) as popularized by astronomer Hugh Ross. Dr. Hugh Ross, a day-age creationist, holds the position of harmonizing the Genesis account of creation with the belief that the earth is billions of years old, a position which Sarfati rejects." agapetos_angel 23:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Can it be made clearer still? I'd say most readers won't understand the meaning of "harmonizing the Genesis account with the belief that the earth is billions of years old". I'd say something like: "His latest book, Refuting Compromise, is a rebuttal of the creationist position popularized by astronomer Dr. Hugh Ross, who argues that, although God created mankind, the fossil record is accurate, and creationist stories in the Bible should be regarded as myths, rather than historical descriptions." (Just a suggestion; feel free to ignore). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I think Ross's argument is slightly more complicated than that. You may want to see the wiki page on him for more details. Incidentally, I think this kept getting taken out just because it got caught up in all the other reverts going on. JoshuaZ 00:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Joshua. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm very open to suggestions for alternative wording. I just think it is important to include a brief overview of what the book is rebutting. agapetos_angel 08:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

What about ""His latest book, Refuting Compromise, argues against Old Earth Creationist views, particularly as expressed by Hugh Ross." JoshuaZ 15:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me for a moment while I smack my forehead. Well done, Joshua! I agree. (maybe just add Ph.D. after Ross? or is that overkill?) agapetos_angel 01:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. To the point without sounduing contentious. Jim62sch 22:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

6

Sarfati is the club captain/director-of-play for the Logan City Chess Club, Australia. He gives frequent "blindfold" chess exhibits at AiG conferences,(PDF) as well as chess clubs [36] and has been known to play twelve such games simultaneously. [37] His previous best was winning 11/11 at the Kapiti Chess Club in New Zealand (Roberts, E., New Zealand Chess 29(3):23, June 2003).

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

D6

Discussion regarding # 6:

• As above, if he is the club captain, and there is a credible published source for it, I see no harm in mentioning it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly "V.", the issue is "N.". This is at best of marginal notability for me, though what concerns me more especially is the "many a mickle makes a muckle" aspect to this. At one point we had fully half the intro, and a three-paragraph section on the chess stuff, which does not concur with my estimation of proportionate to the respective notabilities of the subject, in this case. Alai 08:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

There's no harm in it though, and it's verified. It would seem churlish to leave it out. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I noticed on the talk pages [38] that there is a post from someone who is a member of Croydon Chess, the link used for the recent blindfold chess exhibit source. He, and the iRfC, point to notablity of the Chess in general. However, I have to agree with Alai on 'marginal notability' in regards to the chess captain. agapetos_angel 09:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe less would be more in this instance. The amount quoted above should probably be seen as an upper limit. Grace Note 14:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Upper limit for the whole article, or for the lead section? Alai 04:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The article, really. He's not particularly notable as a chess player. The article should without question focus on what he is most known for, which isn't, to be fair, chess. Grace Note 05:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

That'd be about my own feeling. Alai 17:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

A point that had been made ad nauseum previously. Jim62sch 22:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally I can stand a bit of nausea, if it leads to some clarity and consensus. Alai 00:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

And really sloppy shoes. Jim62sch 00:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

(ri) I've expressed my disagreement in the original talk, but repeat it here because of the continued discussion. There has been an independent and impartial iRfC that explained why it should be included (as well as posting from the President of the chess club that recently hosted a blindfold match). As it currently stands (02:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)), the section outlines current events (frequent blindfold chess exhibits), former championships/Olympiad information that is properly sourced, and one sentence regarding a draw with a world champion (Spasskey). As Durova said (paraphrased), that would be enough to justify its own article. I maintain that the section should include all the relevant points (club captain not being one of them, IMO), because it's hardly hagiographic or NPOV violation. We are not talking about adding whether Sarfati had a paper route as a kid or if he enjoys playing poker in his spare time with his mates at the club. Chess, in this instance, is not listed as some trival hobby, but is rather another facet of the individual that is relevant on its own merit. As such, it should have that (current) brief section, and share the intro. As SV said, 'It would seem churlish to leave it out'. agapetos_angel 02:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe that comment of Slim's was about the chess captain factoid, which is in the main-body section as it stands. Are you indeed agreeing that we could lose that? I don't think anyone would suggest that LCCC is itself notable as a chess entity: if anything it's gaining a (very small) degree of notability from having Sarfati as a member, rather than vice versa.

IMO, the intro should certainly mention FM and ex-champ; but doesn't need to mention the olympiad and the blindfold chess, as it's clearly much less notable than the first sentenceful, is making the "chess half" of the intro disproportionately long, snd is painfully repeated at greater length in the chess section. I have no objection to their inclusion in the chess section (the once). The Kapiti Chess Club score strikes me as being extraneous: once again KCC don't seem to merit their own article, but my impression this is not the like of Philidor thrashing the best half-dozen players in Paris. (If this merited an article in NZC, rather than just a report of the score, I might reverse myself on that, so if the provider of that source could clarify...) Everying else is fine as it stands. Alai 05:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Judging by the citation, it was an article in NZC.203.213.77.138 03:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Your (and Durova's) statements that JS-as-chess-player "justifies" a significant article isn't borne out in evidence inside wikipedia as it stands. At such time as we have a three-paragraph article on all 4000 FMs, everyone Spassky dropped a half-point to, and at the very least, the 10th and 12th highest rated New Zealand chess players, there's certainly no direct evidence that he's especially and inherently notable as a chess player, independently of his main fame. Or even, any statistically significant fraction of the above. The competition for articlespace in Category:New Zealand chess players seems to be a grand total of four players, all of them IMs (i.e. significantly stronger and more notable as such). Alai 05:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

7

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

• Comment: Fédération Internationale des Échecs is the correct name. Was reverted to 'The International Chess Federation'
  • Recommend: Retention, with slight copyedit modification
    • Justification: Accurate name is sourced within Wiki, and also here
      • Reasons given for exclusion: None that I found.
      • Revision Suggestion: 1988, FIDE Master title, Fédération Internationale des Échecs (World Chess Federation)[39]

D7

Discussion regarding # 7:

Again, if this true and properly sourced, I don't see the problem with it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there was any particular dispute over FIDE Master as such, though I must admit I too was getting rather narked off at one point at the speed at which things like fixing link texts were getting reverted in the general merry-go-round. Alai 08:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

FIDE is like FIFA. It should be rendered as an acronym because the French isn't very well known. Otherwise, being a Master is sufficiently accomplished to be mentioned. If I were one, I'd want it mentioned in my biography. Grace Note 14:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

If I were one, it'd be my middle name. SlimChessMasterVirgin ^(talk) 01:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Which reminds me: I think the original dispute and/or incidental reversions here were to, link to FM, link text as "chess master". Which is suboptimal, as there are several grades (like the masons? :), which this obscures. i.e., would you be SlimCandidateMasterVirgin, SlimInternationalMasterVirgin (sounds like a new type of phone chip), etc, etc. But I don't think that's currently disputed. It would indeed be hard to mention chess at all without saying this, and I don't think anyone is saying not to mention chess at all. Alai 20:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

(ri) FIDE is used within the article as an acronym, and I agree with that wholeheartedly (or it would begin to look 'messy'). # 7 above is from subsection: Honors/Awards/Associations. This objection doesn't relate directly to article subject, but rather to the importantance of accurately representing the name Fédération Internationale des Échecs (World Chess Federation) rather than the (re-)reverted 'The International Chess Federation'. It would be similar to FIFA, listing FIFA in the article and "FIFA, Federation Internationale de Football Association" rather than an incorrect rendition of the federation name, especially when the correct name is available. There was no reason given for the changes back to the incorrect version, that I saw. agapetos_angel 23:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, FIDE Master is the title. The wiki-link goes to the article that outlines the other titles that FIDE awards. agapetos_angel 04:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It should be rendered only as an acronym, IMO, which is the most common form of the reference by far. Anyone still confused what 'FIDE' is, even given the context, need but click on links. Alai 04:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with acronym throughout the article, but my opinion is that the Honors/Awards/Associations entry should reflect the full proper association name. Inclusion isn't the big issue for me, though; accuracy is. If it's there, it should be correct. agapetos_angel 08:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

8

Sarfati has strongly defended the pro-life cause. Thus he opposes abortion for any reason [40][41][42] except to save the life of the mother [43] and opposes embryonic stem cell research, while supporting adult stem cell research. [44] He has also argued that the Bible contradicts slavery and apartheid [45][46], and argued that Nazism owed much to evolutionary ideas.[47][48][49]

• Comment: An objection was made that this article needed to adhere to WP:MOS guidelines, particularly to external links. I agree with this and see the Moral issues subsection is the largest offender.
  • Recommend: Overlinkage can be reduced to one link per point. Or my preferred recommendation is to create a Resources (footnote) section for external links with subsections such as: 'Resources'/'Moral issues'.
    • Justification: There were two editors who made separate complaints on the overlinkage/external linkage issue
      • Reasons given: I think the issue was readability. (Perhaps the distraction of too many external link markers?)
        • Example:

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

After which would be a link to the bottom of the article, one link for the entire paragraph, where something like this would be found:

• ==Resources==
• ===Another subheader==
• ===Moral issues===
  • Sarfati's opposition to abortion for any reason (1)
  • Sarfati's opposition to abortion for any reason (2)
  • Sarfati's opposition to abortion for any reason (3)
  • Sarfati indicates "life of the mother is the only exception" to his opposition to abortion
  • Sarfati's opposition to embryonic stem cell research/support for adult stem cell research
  • Sarfati's analysis that the Bible contradicts slavery and apartheid (1)
  • Sarfati's analysis that the Bible contradicts slavery and apartheid (2)
  • Sarfati's analysis that Nazism owed much to evolutionary ideas (1)
  • Sarfati's analysis that Nazism owed much to evolutionary ideas (2)
  • Sarfati's analysis that Nazism owed much to evolutionary ideas (3)
• ===Another subheader==

Alternatively, just a resource header with no subheaders. I think the subheaders will add to the article in that it will make it easy, if cloned from the article subheaders, for the reader to find the resources that support the claims made in the article. Corrective phrasing of above would be fine. I just didn't like the seemingly POV 'argued', but there might be justification of that usage, I'm not sure. agapetos_angel 23:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

D7

Discussion regarding # 7:

Lots of links are better than too few. I don't support the removal of links unless the articles or websites linked to are poor sources, or are entirely repetitive. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right. Without the links, the above would be full of unsupported assertions. They are not too intrusive either.220.245.180.133 08:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It was not my point to remove the sources entirely, which goes entirely against what I've been attempting to do with the other section. I'm just looking to place one link after the paragraph, rather than 10 links within it. agapetos_angel 23:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

No. Links within the paragraph are cognate with endnotes while yours are more like further commentary. The style with links is very common on WP and in my view definitely a good way to go. Because we want all our articles tightly sourced (no, really, we do!), this is an excellent way of doing it without saying "Blah Blah said x and Bloo Bloo said Y" all the time. Grace Note 05:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I'm still trying to get a handle on the best way to source, but agree fully that things must be sourced. I'll bow to the wiser here on that issue :) agapetos_angel 13:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

7a

External links in the entire article should follow the WP:Manual of Style guidelines.

D7a

Discussion regarding # 7: Not sure what this means. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This really ties into # 7 above (I'll call this discussion 7a, for that reason). I was looking to compromise with other editors whose complaint was that the links were excessive and distracting. While I do not find sourcing excessive (quite the opposite), I do see the point that the WP:MoS places External links in a separate place in the article under their own subheader. (Note: SV's comment above was prior to my clarification of this point, so confusion is completely understandable!) agapetos_angel 23:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I see the point now. A better way to organize references is to create a References section at the end, listing full citations for books, articles, and websites that have been used as sources, and below that a Further reading section that lists anything of interest related to the topic, but which has not actually been used as a source. See WP:CITE for more details, and Rat Park for an example (scroll to the end). My own preference is always to have inline embedded links after the sentence or paragraph the source is supporting, in addition to full citations in the References section. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Formats were just a suggestion. I'm not opposed to any arangement of the links (as long as they remain to support the articles claims) that meets the style guidelines. My main goal on this was to compromise with the editors who were supporting that the WP:MoS had to be followed. agapetos_angel 04:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

WiP confusion/Thank you

SV, this section was intended to be a work in progress (hidden note under header). I'm making notes and will use above format for ease in reading. I just wanted to take a couple steps at a time, while not losing train of thought on this issues. Sorry for the confusion. agapetos_angel 08:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I'll repeat/modify my replies depending on what you say. Post a note somewhere when you've finished so that I know it's okay to respond. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

My fault. I should have made that more obvious. I just needed a break, but didn't want to forget where I was headed. agapetos_angel 08:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I've finished addressing all the concerns I can remember. I think I brought each back to the original point I was making on the original Talk page, with modificcations where my original points might not have been clear enough (and addressing the new concerns that popped up). I want to thank all the editors who are participating here to reach WP:CON through compromise and discussion. Special thank you to SlimVirgin for her assistance in trying to clear these up after all the long, draining weeks of dispute in Talk. agapetos_angel 23:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. I hope it has helped. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems to have done. In a short time, we have reached consensus on several issues that were debated for weeks. agapetos_angel 08:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Summing up

We seem to have reached consensus on all the issues so far as I can see. Let me know if I've misunderstood anything:

• The Socrates Internet troll claim is not sourced to a good-enough source per WP:V and shouldn't be added. (This is the point over which there is least agreement, so we may need to discuss it further.)
• The names of family members is not relevant and shouldn't be added.
• The section about the extent to which Sarfati can be regarded as a scientist is original research and/or unsourced, and should be removed until a source is found. Joshua and FM will look for a source.
• This sentence may be added: "Sarfati has published papers on Spectroscopy in peer-reviewed scientific journals (abstracts available on ScienceDirect.com)" [with links]
• This sentence may be added: "He also co-authored a "Letters to Nature" submission on high-temperature superconductors [end there, or add to this], which was published in 1987 [which gets in the word "published," which AA wanted, but leaves out the age." (Nature (ISSN 0028-0836), vol. 328, July 16, 1987, p. 233, 234)
• This sentence (or a close version of it) may be added: "His latest book, Refuting Compromise is a rebuttal of the day-age creationist teachings of Dr. Hugh Ross, who attempts to harmonize the Genesis account of creation with the belief that the earth is billions of years old, a position which Sarfati rejects."
• The chess material is relevant and notable, though it shouldn't be labored, and if there are different levels of Master, it should be made clear which level he has reached.
• Links are fine after the sentence/paragraph, but AA is willing to move them to an external links section, which I've suggested be split into a References and Further reading section.

Is the above about right? If so, it's probably a good idea for AA not to make these changes, so could one of the other editors on the page make them, unless there is still disagreement? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Summing up discussion

I disagree slightly on the Socrates issue. It seems to me, at least looking at other webpages that are largely internet only phenomena, that when something is intrinsically internety, the standard for reporting common behavior is acceptable. Furthermore, talkorigins.org (the website, not the usenet group talk.origins) is a fairly reliable website which has been endorsed and/or recommended as a useful reliable source by Science, Scientific American, the NAS, the AAAS, the Smithsonian Institute and others. Also, a number of major highschool bio textbooks, such as the latest addition of Stern's Introductory Plant Biology recommend the website as a resource. All of these and more are listed on :http://talkorigins.org/faqs/awards/ . Thus, it is almost overkill to use talkorigins.org as a source to report the Socrates claim (as a claim, not as definite). However, I am on near complete agreement about everything else. JoshuaZ 01:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean about Talk:Origins. It gets a good write-up. AA, how opposed are you (or anyone else) to including the Socrates claim? Is there any wording you could agree to? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

(ec) Is there a source for the author of the unattributed, introductory statement? It refers to Moore in the third person ('This article is Mr. Moore's ... Mr. Moore reports'), and we can't be sure that it is representative of something Moore said. agapetos_angel 08:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Moore is only one source among many(particularly, the most acceptable to use within wiki policy). I think therefore that it falls under the category of "When the holders of the opinion are too diverse or numerous to qualify." see [50]. JoshuaZ 15:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's important to have at least one actual reputable source. The lack of notability of that point would lead, I think, to failure of the 'too diverse or numerous' criterion. YMMV. (Maybe some should remove the point from the summary and move this continued discussion back under the point as it's still being discussed?) agapetos_angel 01:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, I strongly disagree with the end of the last sentence. The age is non-notable and POVy (and imo, it isn't that young. It might be a big deal if he were the primary or sole author but he isn't). WIth the age of that taken out, I'm fine with it. JoshuaZ 01:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that was more or less agreed above, so I'll remove it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Joshua on the Socrates thing. You can't apply the same standards to Internet goings-on, which simply are not widely reported, as you do to current affairs that are. Talk.origins.org simply isn't "disreputable". The "other side" would certainly accept it as the standard. It often attacks its members and their ideas. I think all combatants in the "creation-evolution controversy", whether they agree with what TOO has to say or don't, would accept its place as a source. Of course, they like it better on "our side". I would consider AiG to be reputable though in this context, or the DI's homepage. I don't mean that I take what they say as gospel (pardon the unintended pun) but certainly they are a strong source for what the creationist POV is. Grace Note 04:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed science section.

This should probably go in under the headline "Criticism" or "Controversy." Feedback and any further suggestions for other sources would be appreciated.

Critics and supporters of Sarfati often disagree whether he should be considered a scientist. Young Earth Creationism is considered a pseudoscience by almost all scientists. Supporters would argue that he has a doctorate in physical chemistry and has published in undisputed scientific journals, so is a scientist. Another issue is whether one can be a scientist in some domains of work even if one advocates an ostensibly non-scientific position in others. However, the young Earth creationist site Answers in Genesis lists many creationists who are active in science (though many for work unconnected to creationism), and points out that many of the founders of modern science, such as Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell were biblical creationists. http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/default.asp [though Darwinian theory was not seriously developed until after all of the preceding had died. In response, Sarfati has argued that in reality evolutionary ideas date back at least to Greek philosophers, and these scientists were well aware of them [51], although scientists argue that these are very different from modern evolutionary theory.

Sarfati received his PhD in physical chemistry.TalkOrigins and No Answers in Genesis have printed articles from critics, such as Dave Moore and Dr Gary Hurd who have questioned Sarfati's knowledge in other fields such as biology and astronomy, citing what they view as elementary errors by Sarfarti. [52] [53] [54]. Greg Neyman, "founder of the Old Earth Ministries/Answers In Creation website ministry" published a book review of Refuting Compromise [55]. Sarfati himself has raised this point regarding writers in skeptic journals, eg he called one such writer "An anthropologist, so anything he says about radiometric dating should be taken with a large grain of salt."[56] In addition, Sarfati has written:

"We have always tried to avoid saying or implying ‘believe me because I’m a scientist trained in such and such a field’, therefore we were not guilty of this fallacy. Rather, we try to rely on the strengths of our arguments, the soundness or unsoundness of which are independent of who is making them. Hopefully, the only time we appeal to our qualifications is defensively, to refute the charge that ‘no intelligent person/no real scientist believes creation/doubts goo-to-you evolution, or to point out to ‘professional biologists’ resorting to that fallacy that we also have ‘professional biologists’ on staff. [57]"

JoshuaZ 02:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Joshua, the problem with it is that it's unsourced and therefore looks like original research. Instead of saying "supporters argue" and "another issue is," you would need to supply the names of sources who had actually made this argument, with citations. For example, who has actually disagreed, as in: "Critics and supporters of Sarfati often disagree whether he should be considered a scientist"? What is your source for: "Young Earth Creationism is considered a pseudoscience by almost all scientists"? And this: "Supporters would argue that he has a doctorate in physical chemistry and has published in undisputed scientific journals, so is a scientist": who has argued this, and where? And this: "Another issue is whether one can be a scientist in some domains of work even if one advocates an ostensibly non-scientific position in others." Who has raised this issue? You seem to be saying that a physicist who goes to the synagogue on Saturdays isn't really a physicist because he "advocates an ostensibly non-scientific position" in some areas.

The whole argument looks like original research to me i.e. it looks like your argument. If it is someone else's argument, you need to supply the names. Also, bear in mind that, if you put bits and pieces of other people's arguments together, it might still be OR. You actually need to find someone who has made the precise argument you are making. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The second and third paragraphs seem fine. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

My limited research has found no claims that Sarfati cannot be considered a scientist because his is a Creationist, but several examples contending that his Creation science writings are outwith his field of expertise. I propose that the first three sentences be replaced by the following paragraph, and tthe remainder of JoshuaZ's first paragraph moved further down so that his second and third paragraphs follow on:

Sarfati's scientific credentials are emphasised on Young Earth Creationist publications, specifically Answers in Genesis which describes him[58] as a "Creationist Physical Chemist and Spectroscopist" who returned to Australia in August 1996 "to take up a position as a research scientist and editorial consultant for the Creation Science Foundation" and lists his "Creation science articles". Creation science is considered a pseudoscience by mainstream scientists, and the United States National Academy of Sciences states that "creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such." [59] His opponents from the scientific community as well as Old Earth Creationists argue that the Creationist arguments he puts forward are largely in fields where he lacks credentials.

This together with the sources listed in the second paragraph should meet the need to provide sources. ...dave souza, talk 20:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC), amended ,,dave souza, talk 21:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this a blog, but hit the links (and I don't mean the golf course): YEC pseudoscience Jim62sch 20:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Perfect Dave, it covers all the bases and has the necessary sourcing. Jim62sch 20:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

That's definitely better, Dave. The sentence "his opponents from the scientific community ...": you need names and then you should repeat exactly what they have said, otherwise it's your own argument.

I think the general problem here is that you're writing as though you have an axe to grind; as though you're trying to undermine him. Whether or not he's a scientist is arguably a bit of a red herring, and the arguments about creationism aren't really part of his bio, in my view. It would be like mounting an argument against deontological ethics in the article about Immanuel Kant, or against the existence of black holes in Stephen Hawking. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's not lose sight of the fact that Sarfati has used the same tactics in criticising his opponents. Given that history, the issue is relevant. Jim62sch 23:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with Dave's revised version. JoshuaZ 23:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It's original research and is therefore unacceptable. Jim, what do you mean by saying that Sarfati "has used the same tactics"? This is a biography in an encyclopedia. We're not out to undermine or criticize him, or to express the views of Wikipedia editors, but simply to publish what reputable sources have published about him, and what he has published about himself. That's it. That's all we do. See WP:NOR and WP:V. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

As it's a given that some degree of self-characterisations will figure, I think it's reasonable to scale the threshold for "reputability" of counter-characterisations to a degree (within limits). Lest we end up by concluding that we must report all someone's statements about themselves unchallenged, unless the NYT has taken a swipe at them. What's reasonable as a source for JS isn't necessarily reasonable as a source on JS. Alai 18:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad someone was paying attention to my "tu quoque" statement. However, in publishing what he has said about himself and what others have said about him, we are going to end up with quotes that seem to undermine and criticize him.

As for the rest, I really didn't need the lecture, as those are points (along with NPOV and prominence) I brought up regarding his Chess activity. Jim62sch 11:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm concerned that you can't see how this is OR. Look:

"Sarfati's scientific credentials are emphasised on Young Earth Creationist publications, specifically Answers in Genesis which describes him[60] as a "Creationist Physical Chemist and Spectroscopist" who returned to Australia in August 1996 "to take up a position as a research scientist and editorial consultant for the Creation Science Foundation" and lists his "Creation science articles"."

This is fine so far, though it's long-winded and oddly written, and it's not clear who believes his credentials are "emphasised" rather than just listed. Then suddenly we see that in fact it's the beginning of an argument, and here is the next part of it:

"Creation science is considered a pseudoscience by mainstream scientists, and the United States National Academy of Sciences states that "creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such." [61]

First sentence + second sentence = an argument created by a Wikipedian. Then another argument is set up, using unnamed "opponents" as the source:

"His opponents from the scientific community as well as Old Earth Creationists argue that the Creationist arguments he puts forward are largely in fields where he lacks credentials."

So now the argument is, not only does he trumpet his scientific credentials when mainstream scientists say creation science is a pseudoscience anyway, but look! he doesn't even have the right credentials to begin with.

Classic example of original research. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Some sources and quotes as requested: it may be appropriate to add "and are not scientific" to the end of the proposed paragraph to overcome the "this isn't exactly the words" objections. This is a work in progress, obtained by a quick google when researching this earlier. Any axe to grind is WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience. Scarfati is notable as a YEC who claims scientific credibility for his Creation science writings. The essential point is that this credibility is disputed. In my opinion he is a scientist, possibly retired, but that does not give scientific credibility to his Creationist writings which are clearly pseudoscience.

• • Digit Numbering and Limb Development, PZ Myers, biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris. "the uninformed rejection of some of the most straightforward, clearest examples of common mechanisms in development, something that you can find described in the most introductory biology textbook…that’s hard to forgive."
  • Supernovae and Supernova Remnants: Reply to Jonathan Sarfati Dave Moore, "currently (June 2003) almost half-way through a part-time degree in Physical Sciences (majoring in Astrophysics)" "that doesn't seem to stop Sarfati pontificating upon any subject under the sun on the AiG website [3] [4], when he lacks basic qualifications in most subject areas."
  • The C-Files: Jonathan Sarfati of Answers in Genesis Dave Thomas, New Mexicans for Science and Reason "Sarfati's replies invariably used polemics rather than scientific substance"
  • Science, Sarfati, Photon Transmissions Dr. Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D. "Clearly, Sarfati's approach to the migration of photons within the Sun is not only anti-scientific, but it's also inconsistent and hypocritical."
  • Jonathan Sarfati's "Refuting Evolution": Refuted by Reality Dr. Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D. "full of elementary errors in astronomy, chemistry, geology and the nature of science"
  • Does Dr Jonathan Sarfati have any integrity John Stear "like many creationists, he attempts to refute many aspects of evolution by writing beyond his field of expertise"
  • Greene's Creationism Truth Filter - ""Flood Geology" Nonsense" Dr. Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D. "Overall, Sarfati's post is full of outdated and erroneous claims that could be easily corrected if he would just read some undergraduate geology textbooks"
  • YEC citing scientific credentials: TrueAuthority.com - Questions And Answers Josef Long. TrueAuthority.com For True Science "As for having a scientific backbone, Jonathan Sarfati has a Ph.D. in physical chemistry. Of course, the fact that he is a creationist will make a lot of people scoff at him as being a "real" scientist, but his credentials speak for themselves, and he is very good at backing up what he says."

...dave souza, talk 01:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC), amended, and disappointed to find this judged as original research when I was in the process of putting together the requested quotes from web pages I already had open. ...dave souza, talk 01:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Dave, as a gesture of goodwill, could you please go to the page and, if this section is still in it, remove it until it's fixed? Then take the sources you have found (from books and articles, nothing from Usenet or self-published websites e.g. trueauthority.com doesn't sound like a great source, though I haven't checked it), and put together their argument, not your own. That is, don't put together your own argument using their quotes, because that leads to OR. Put together a section that simply repeats what the good published sources say, using quotes wherever possible, and no instances of "some say this," or "supporters say that." Use only fully attributed material.

I'm sorry you're disappointed, and I also apologize if I was premature in making a comment. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, thanks for the guidance on the importance of expressing the arguments put by the sources and avoiding OR. You're right to point out that this section might be seen as an argument against Sarfati, and on reviewing the article I think that part of the problem is that it does not at present give much indication of what views or beliefs he expresses, and the arguments about their validity are put before the section on his writings. I would suggest that this part could come as a subsection under the Writings section, and start with more detail of Sarfati's views. My draft idea as a basis for discussion of how this could go follows:

In his writings Sarfati provides a biblical and scientific defense of his views on Genesis creation, and his books and Creation science articles cover a wide range of topics. On astronomy, he writes that the remains of supernovae, distribution of comets and dilation of the speed of light can provide scientific explanations consistent with the universe being created 6,000 years ago. [links as AiG's biography, further examples to follow]

The consensus amongst mainstream scientists is that young earth creationism and Creation science are not science, but pseudoscience[62][63]. Scarfati takes an active part in the creation-evolution controversy, and his opponents from both the scientific and old earth creationist viewpoints argue that the Creationist arguments he puts forward are scientifically incorrect, and largely in fields where he lacks credentials, an argument which he also makes against his critics. [Here cite examples as required, then further paragraphs as above to follow]

Your suggestion that I have the expertise and resources to provide full documentation is flattering, but I should point out that I am not a scientist and first viewed the Scarfati page only a week ago. My contributions have been confined to correcting a misleading suggestion that AiG had called famous early figures in science "creationists", when in fact AiG's description is better, being less anachronistic. However, it has been my experience that when an article is disputed, open participation by the Wikipedia community can help to obtain and analyse the required source material. I hope the above suggestion will help to progress improvement of this article. ...dave souza, talk 17:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dave, I didn't realize you had only just looked at the article a week ago. In that case, thank you, and your latest version is a big improvement.

As a matter of interest, why does anyone feel that a PhD in chemistry is not a good enough qualification to discuss creationism? What would be regarded as appropriate? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, part of the issue is that Sarfati repeatedly attacks other people for not having what he feels are relevant credentials (for example an anthropologist discussing astronomy). Yet Sarfati feels no problem discussing every area himself. Also, in general, scientists and related fields are very specialized, the idea of someone who reasonably knows all the fields is a bit odd and especially so given Sarfati's attacks on others. Hope that helps. JoshuaZ 22:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Slim, it would be more appropriate to have a qualification in molecular biology or geology, depending on what aspect of creationism you are discussing. A chemist discussing punctuated equilibrium is no more or less qualified to do so than Joe Blow with a qualification in nothing at all. Grace Note 23:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Even anthropology or paleontology would be acceptable. In fact, were Sarfati's PhD in biochemistry he'd be at least as qualified as Behe to talk about it. However, chemistry itself in no way gives him any more credence than, as Grace said, Joe Blow. Jim62sch 23:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

(ri - edit conflict with Jim) I have to go with the crowd regarding TalkOrigins, with a clarification. While it is a repository of usenet submissions, the awards suggest that the words of a given person probably meet the WP:V threshold of actually being that person's words. I have used a quote by Henke on another matter. However, I maintain that there has to be proper attribution and sourcing.

Also, on the Sarfati quote from TrueOrigins [64] about Appeal to Authority, I strongly suggest that an alternative quote is used. Does no one else find it ironic that the quote used to illustrate the fallacy AtoA commits its own fallacy, Quoting out of Context? Using that quote necessitates the honest inclusion of the introduction statement that points out that Sarfati's usage was intended parody (including: 'But I can certainly play Stear’s little game of ad hominems, beginning with Stear himself'). If Sarfati's appeal to authority is as wide spread as suggested, a more suitable quote that doesn't commit logical fallacy suicide should be easy to find. agapetos_angel 01:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflicts are the bane of Wiki.  ;) Anyway, I'm not sure I follow you on the above regarding TO and AtoA. Quoting out of context isn't really a fallacy; it is however, something one ought not to do for other reasons. However, AiG itself (although not, in this case, Sarfati) do the same thing here [65] and although they later note that "later on in the same chapter of his book, he explained how he believed it evolved anyway and that the ‘absurdity’ was illusory", they nonetheless fail to provide the entire quote, instead engaging in a mild ad hom on Darwin, "Had Darwin had the knowledge about the eye and its associated systems that man has today (which is a great deal more than what it was in his time), he may have given up his naturalistic theory on the origin of living things."

Also, having read the entire article, I note that its tenor is not one of parody, but rather of withering sarcasm and ad homs galore -- and having read a number of Sarfati's other articles this appears to be his modus operandi in many cases. To wit, "However, as will be shown, Dr Birkett displays an inexcusable ignorance about the importance of Genesis..." [66].

As it stands now, the Sarfati article reads more or less like a publicity bio -- with the exception of the morality section, and I still can't figure out why that's in the article. After everything everyone has been through re this article, we should really make sure that it's the best it can be, and a publicity bio we can get off the AiG website. Jim62sch 11:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I was also wondering why the moral views section is there. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

A lot of his writing is about moral issues and/or how they relate to creationism. I am therefore sticking the morals section back in for now. JoshuaZ 14:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

He isn't notable for his moral views, but for his views on creationism (and arguably he might be notable separately for his chess), and we don't say how his moral views relate to creationism, except that presumably he derives them from the Bible. I won't remove them myself, but that section does look incongruous, in my view. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

When I have time I'll try to add in a part to that section about how his moral views are related to the creationism. JoshuaZ 15:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, déjà vu all over again. I could swear I remember writing how his moral views were irrelevant to the article. While I find some of his views to be a bit out there (even finding two to be repugnant, I still don't see how they relate to his YEC stuff, which as a number of us have pointed out is his real claim to fame. After all, Sarfati is not known as a philosopher or moralist, so I'm at a loss as to how his moral and political views are of value are of value. Jim62sch 23:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

After thinking about this, I have concluded that you are correct. JoshuaZ 00:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Losing sight of the article?

It might be a good idea to look at recent edits to the article. [67] Jim62sch 01:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Someone has changed 'Scientist' to 'Scientific credentials' and brought the issues to a concise nutshell. Would that be an acceptable edit if 'While he lacks specfic scientific credentials that would lend credibility to his Young Earth Creationism publications' was attributed/sourced to a specific critic or critics? agapetos_angel 01:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You would have to find a credible third-party source who said that he lacks specific scientific credentials (or isn't a scientist, or whatever the criticism is). Every single piece of criticism must be attributed to someone other than Wikipedia or unnamed "opponents." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

In a certain aspect, that of lending credibility to his YEC publications, his scientific credentials aren't relevant as YEC is considered a pseudo-science. Behe's credentials certainly haven't helped his case or that of ID, which is also seen as a pseudoscience, and via a court decision, as religion masquerading as science. Jim62sch 23:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Science Section

Ok, does someone have a final version of that section that they can paste here and see if we can agree on yet? JoshuaZ 05:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I did some editing of the page today in accordance with this discussion, and I deleted that section entirely until it's rewritten with sources. It would also be good to say something about his creationist views, which the article doesn't touch on. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

As JoshuaZ and SlimVirgin have expressed satisfaction with my draft as a basis for progress, I've tidied it up and post it below. This is by no means a final version, but as the removal of the science section means that the article now violates WP:OR#How to deal with Wikipedia entries about theories and WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience, I suggest that it be moved promptly into the article as a subsection of Writings so that the normal process of editing can proceed to iron out any difficulties, rather than cluttering up this talk page further with slight variations. ...dave souza, talk 18:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Dave, the article doesn't violate that section of NOR because the article is not about a theory, and it doesn't violate that section of NPOV, because no one has yet (that I have seen) found a reputable source who calls Sarfati a pseudoscientist. There is no rush at all to add a criticism section. See WP:LIVING: criticism in articles about living persons must be very carefully written and sourced. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Here: "[2]. But that doesn't seem to stop Sarfati pontificating upon any subject under the sun on the AiG website [3] [4], when he lacks basic qualifications in most subject areas. Is that the stench of hypocrisy in the air? " from [68]. This, too, is of interest Two Years Later. And there is this, [69]. OK, how about this? [70]. Would that be sufficient? Jim62sch 23:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

One of the sources is a blog, so no. The others are talkorigins.org, which is very borderline, so I suppose it depends who the authors are. I've asked this before and got no answser, but perhaps you know: who are Dave Moore, Gary Hurd, Reed A. Cartwright, and Douglas L. Theobald? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No real knowledge of Moore. Cartwright and Theobald are both major contributors/editors of talkorigins.org. In any case, while I'm inclined to agree about Panda's Thumb, talkorigins.org is reliable enough that we shouldn't need more information about Moore(furthermore, if AiG is ok to cite, talkorigins.org definitely should be). JoshuaZ 01:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

AiG has paid staff. Does talkorigins.org? See WP:RS. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

See the following for an idea of who Theobald is, [71], [72], [73] [74]. I think this should be sufficient to establish his bona fides.Jim62sch 11:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Theobald looks like a good source. Thanks for finding the links. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Here are three for Gary S Hurd, PhD, [75] [76] [77]. He should be acceptable as well. Jim62sch 17:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

He's an anthropologist, so I suppose it depends on what he is saying and where he's saying it. Remember that personal websites are not allowed as third-party sources unless it's a website set up by a known professional in a relevant field. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Moore is an astronomer, his work was used as a reference for a Texas case: [78] Jim62sch 18:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Given that, I think it makes sense to put Moore's comments in. Any objections? JoshuaZ 22:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I object to the inclusion of Moore until we know who he is. In what sense is he an astronomer? And the case you linked to, Jim, just includes a link at the end to an article of his on talk.origins. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

He hasn't finished an undergraduate degree, so one must question whether he is an authority.203.213.77.138 04:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

He seems to be an astronomer involved with irishastronomy.org -- unfortunately, that's not as strong from a CV perspective as one might like. The real bummer with that is this: as a long-time student of cosmology and physics I know that he is right and that his paper would pass muster with cosmologists. On the other hand, the fact that his paper was referenced by the American Astronomical Society [79], a well-respected organization in existence for 107 years, in their evidentiary paper to the Texas School board regarding the teaching of creationism/intelligent design in schools would seem to indicate that his paper is accurate. Jim62sch 12:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Cartwright should be acceptable as well: [80] [81] [82] Jim62sch 22:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Jim, it would be helpful if you could summarize what you find, rather than making us all pour through the links. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Slim. Can I plead temporary dimness?  ;) Jim62sch 12:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Science

Thank you, Dave. This is a vast improvement. Thank you for writing it! Some comments below. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Note that the second and third paragraphs including many of the links are based on the suggested paragraphs by JoshuaZ which were thought acceptable. I've made no attempt to search for more substantial links, as my aim has been to provide a draft for further development and I'd hope that this is something that can be amended and refined. ..dave souza, talk 18:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

In his writings Sarfati provides a biblical and scientific defense of his views on Genesis creation, and his books and Creation science articles cover a wide range of topics. On astronomy, he writes that the remains of supernovae[83], distribution of comets[84] and dilation of the speed of light[85] can provide scientific explanations consistent with the universe being created 6,000 years ago, on biology that vestigial organs may have an unknown purpose, and if not would be explained by the Fall[86], and how all the animals including Dinosaurs fitted into the Ark[87][88].

The consensus amongst mainstream scientists is that young earth creationism and Creation science are not science, but pseudoscience[89][90].

The first link above is a personal website, which is not allowed as a third-party source, and the second doesn't contain the word "pseudoscience" so far as I can see. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Good points. Strike the first, the second mentions both Creationism and Creation science, and is cited in the article on pseudoscience: instead of ",but" the sentence could change to "–see". ...dave souza, talk 18:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You can't use it as a source for that sentence, given that it doesn't mention pseudoscience, and adding "see pseudoscience" is your own argument again. Why is everyone so keen to get the word "pseudoscience" into this article? If reputable sources have used the word of Sarfati or specifically about AiG's work, name them and add it; but if not, please leave it out. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Scarfati takes an active part in the creation-evolution controversy, and his opponents from both the scientific and old earth creationist viewpoints argue that the Creationist arguments he puts forward are scientifically incorrect, and largely in fields where he lacks credentials, an argument which he also makes against his critics. Sarfati received his PhD in physical chemistry.

The above is not needed because it's unsourced and repeated below with sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It's an introduction to say what the following's about. Could be trimmed a bit, but at the least the controversy should be linked. ...dave souza, talk 18:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

TalkOrigins and No Answers in Genesis have printed articles from critics, such as Dave Moore and Dr Gary Hurd who have questioned Sarfati's knowledge in other fields such as biology and astronomy, citing what they view as elementary errors by Sarfarti[91] [92] and accusing him of "pontificating upon any subject under the sun... when he lacks basic qualifications in most subject areas" [93].

Who is Dave Moore exactly? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

An example of a critic of S on TalkOrigins, who describes himself on the page as ""currently (June 2003) almost half-way through a part-time degree in Physical Sciences (majoring in Astrophysics)". See above note about getting better links, though TO appears to be accepted by most parties. ..dave souza, talk 19:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

We can't use an anonymous contributor on the basis that s/he's doing a part-time bachelor's. :-) That's pretty close to a definition of the kind of source we don't use. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Two comments: 1) For internet based phenomena, you will often have much weaker sourcing by nature. 2) talkorigins.org is in general highly reliable and well thought of (see the above discussion and/or take a look at their award list. JoshuaZ 00:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Greg Neyman, "founder of the Old Earth Ministries/Answers In Creation website ministry" published a book review of Refuting Compromise [94]. John Stear on Austarnet alleges that "he attempts to refute many aspects of evolution by writing beyond his field of expertise"Does Dr Jonathan Sarfati have any integrity, and Dr. Kevin R. Henke on Answers in Creation says his approach "is not only anti-scientific, but it's also inconsistent and hypocritical."

Just a point about embedded links: we don't add descriptions to them in the body of a text, but just leave them as numbers. See WP:CITE. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

oops, typos. See source links given earlier for the second. ...dave souza, talk 19:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Sarfati himself has questioned the credentials of writers in skeptic journals, calling one such writer "An anthropologist, so anything he says about radiometric dating should be taken with a large grain of salt." [95]

The final paragraph is your own argument and therefore OR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Partly by JoshouaZ, suits me to leave the paragraph out. ...dave souza, talk 19:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

In addition, Sarfati has written: "We have always tried to avoid saying or implying ‘believe me because I’m a scientist trained in such and such a field’, therefore we were not guilty of this fallacy. Rather, we try to rely on the strengths of our arguments, the soundness or unsoundness of which are independent of who is making them. Hopefully, the only time we appeal to our qualifications is defensively, to refute the charge that ‘no intelligent person/no real scientist believes creation/doubts goo-to-you evolution, or to point out to ‘professional biologists’ resorting to that fallacy that we also have ‘professional biologists’ on staff. [96]" Nevertheless, his biography on AiG displays his qualifications as a bold heading at the top and spells out his scientific credentials, and other young earth creationist websites cite these credentials as supporting his creationist arguments[ [97].

See "Science Section". Adopt, adapt, improve. No more OR. Jim62sch 23:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Parts that might be acceptable

(subheader continued:) ... so long as the sources aren't personal websites, and the writers are themselves known, or qualified, or professional researchers/writers

[I edited the subheader, Dave, because it was so long that everything was skewed off-screen agapetos_angel 00:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)]

In his writings Sarfati provides a biblical and scientific defense of his views on Genesis creation. His books and articles on the subject cover a wide range of topics. On astronomy, he writes that the remains of supernovae [98], distribution of comets, [99] and dilation of the speed of light [100] can provide scientific explanations consistent with the universe having been created 6,000 years ago; on biology that vestigial organs may have an unknown purpose, and if not would be explained by the Fall [101]; and that all the animals, including dinosaurs, fitted into the Ark. [102][103]

Should be Creation science articles: source[104] . ...dave souza, talk 22:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Dr Gary Hurd has questioned Sarfati's expertise in biology and astronomy, citing what he views as elementary errors by Sarfarti. [105] <looks like a personal website>

Greg Neyman, founder of the Old Earth Ministries/Answers In Creation website ministry, published a book review of Refuting Compromise arguing that ...? [106]." <Also looks like a personal website>

John Stear on Austarnet alleges that Sarfati "attempts to refute many aspects of evolution by writing beyond his field of expertise" [107], and Dr. Kevin R. Henke on Answers in Creation says his approach "is not only anti-scientific, but it's also inconsistent and hypocritical." <The first link doesn't seem to work, and it looks like a personal website, and the second quote isn't sourced>

Sarfati himself has questioned the credentials of writers in skeptic journals, calling one such writer "An anthropologist, so anything he says about radiometric dating should be taken with a large grain of salt." [108]

Sarfati has written of AiG that: "We have always tried to avoid saying or implying ‘believe me because I’m a scientist trained in such and such a field’, therefore we were not guilty of this fallacy. Rather, we try to rely on the strengths of our arguments, the soundness or unsoundness of which are independent of who is making them. Hopefully, the only time we appeal to our qualifications is defensively, to refute the charge that ‘no intelligent person/no real scientist believes creation/doubts goo-to-you evolution, or to point out to ‘professional biologists’ resorting to that fallacy that we also have ‘professional biologists’ on staff. [109]"

I've added a version of Dave's criticism section to the page, following the discussion above about sources. See here. I'm hoping that will be enough to make the page more balanced, and that the criticism can be expanded as and when more good sources are found. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)