Talk:Jack Sarfatti/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Criticism section

Lethe, Waldyr specifically revised his statements because he felt they were being misrepresented in Wikipedia. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 17:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

How do you know that Waldyr thinks Wikipedia is misrepresenting his work? -lethe talk + 17:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Arxiv shows only one version. -lethe talk + 17:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
The version in ArXiv does not contain the words you want to "quote". I know about Waldyr's reaction to how his quote was being used in this article, because I received an email with Waldyr's statements that he was making changes last night due to his words being misrepresented here. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 17:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
The arxiv version does contain the words which I quoted. You claim that Waldyr is writing a new version. When it shows up on the arxiv, then, and only then, is it verifiable. We'll discuss it further at that point. -lethe talk + 17:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Lethe, please look at the ArXiv document. Your quote no longer exists. As I said, Waldyr changed it. Please let's not edit war.
Hmm, this is weird. When I get the pdf from http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0602/0602111.pdf the "nonsense" quote is still there, but when I get it from your link, http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0602/0602111.pdf, I see the revision. I guess it hasn't gone round to all the arxiv servers yet or something like that. Anyway, I've reverted 3 times, so any further revert warring is impossible for today. -lethe talk + 17:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to mediate on this article and address *all* the following concerns (a challenge, no?):

  1. improve the article to redeem the image of Wikipedia (as per my friend and his science colleagues who formed a poor opinion based on this article)
  2. Jimbo's concern about any disruption of the encylopedia writing task
  3. Jack Sarfatti's legitimate concern about being unfairly negatively portrayed
  4. critics like Lethe who have academic concerns (though I resist all attempts to portray Jack Sarfatti negatively simply over personal clashes with him)
  5. those feeling "harrassed" on both sides of the issue

The article really needs to be more objective and balanced, something like an updated version of the Disformation interview which was a fair portrayal. This article cannot just be a collection of beefs by critics. Nor should it be a puff piece. I also do not think this is a proper editorial attitude with which to approach the article. Nor is it proper to spin someone's comments to say something they do not say (e.g., misrepresenting Waldyr Rodrigues). I think my version on the WR comment was more balanced and representative. Also, the mathematical inaccuracies are alleged, he explicitly says it is his opinion. And there are others who disagree whether they are in fact inaccuracies anyway. Please consider working with me instead of against me. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 18:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Even if the article does need to be more balanced, surely there's nothing wrong with putting criticisms in the section labelled "criticisms". -lethe talk + 18:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
But it's not very encylopedic the way you stated it. It sounds more like it was written by someone with an axe to grind. I think my version presented the criticism in a more objective and encyclopedic sounding tone. I'll invite other editors for feedback and see what they say. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 18:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I also would like to welcome other people's input. You and I do not seem to see eye-to-eye on how to represent Sarfatti on Wikipedia. I think that the article has to be clear on the fact that for the most part, his work is not accepted by the scientific community as valid. But first, how do we establish that this is the case? And second, assuming that we can establish it, what is the best way to state it in the article? But yes, it would be helpful to have more people weigh-in, have some attempt at consensus. Revert warring is not productive. -lethe talk + 19:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Well it's obviously your *personal* opinion that his work is not considered "valid", but that's original research. The interview article I mentioned lists quotes by several in the scientific community who *do* find his work quite valid. And the fact that you're pushing quoting a negative statement someone withdrew (specifically because they were being misrepresented here) concerns me regarding your objectivity. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 19:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Given the fact that Rodrigues changed what he said in the paper, precisely because he felt he was being misinterpreted, it seems misleading at best, and POV-pushing at worst, to include the original quote in the article. Criticism should be balanced, and we shouldn't have to resort to providing out-of-context, already withdrawn quotes. Jayjg (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Alright then, I concede. I've removed the quote (but I replaced it with another). By the way, would you be willing to post the email you received from Rodrigues here? -lethe talk + 20:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Name change

Does anybody actually have a source for the assertion that he changed his name from "Jack Sarfatt", and that some of his published papers were under the earlier name? He seems to object to this, according to various anonymously-posted messages on user pages threatening legal action about it. In those messages, he claims there was a misprint in his birth certificate that was corrected in 1974, so there may be a germ of truth to the name-change story, but if it was a mere clerical error it probably shouldn't be noted as a "name change" like it currently is. And if there's no authoritative source for any of this, it should probably be removed altogether. *Dan T.* 00:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess no one's gonna stick up for that stuff. I think that if it was just a clerical error, then it probably doesn't belong in the intro, but if it is true that he has published under the name "Sarfatt", then we ought to have it somewhere in the article. -lethe talk + 13:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
What is the source of the claim, Lethe? I'm removing it until that's established. We have edit in accordance with WP:BLP. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea what the source of the claim is. I imagine it would be pretty easy to check whether he ever published under the name Sarfatt, but I have no intention of doing so. If you want to remove stuff about his name change, then be my guest. -lethe talk + 21:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've removed it. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Usenet

I made the Usenet kook award invisible, because we don't use Usenet as a source. See WP:V and WP:RS. If someone reputable has made reference to it, we could use them as a source, but otherwise including it would seem to be a policy violation. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I would think that Usenet is valid as a source of what happened on Usenet itself, though not for events in the "outside world". Thus, if the Usenet kook award is considered sufficiently notable to bear mention, then the Usenet itself (and related Web sites) would be a reasonable source for it. *Dan T.* 12:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Usenet may be used as a source about Usenet, but it may not be used as a source about any third party, for obvious reasons. See WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:RS. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

removed quotes

SlimVirgin, you removed "and opined that later revisions also contained errors" saying you can't see that in the paper. But see section 1 on page 2, where Rodrigues says "there are in our opinion new [errors] which need to be corrected". -lethe talk + 09:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take another look, Lethe, though I suggest we rewrite it as "opined" is an odd word to use. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
The use of that word was my concession to MPerel, who wanted to qualify all the statements with "in his opinion". I think those weasel phrases clutter unnecessarily. Obviously opinions stated by Rodrigues are his opinions. "Opine" means to hold an opinion. What's the problem? -lethe talk + 21:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
It's not a good word. I've tried to tidy the article a little to make it conform to the MoS and CITE, and I've also made some citatation requests, because it lacks sources. All quotes, in particular, need citations, and there are parts where we say "see below" for the citation, but it's not clear where "below" is. I've also created references and further reading sections. Anything that is critical of the subject and not sourced, or inadequately sourced, will have to be removed very soon per WP:BLP. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
It's been blissfully quiet around here lately. I wonder if Jacko is on vacation? Or maybe we've banned all his IP addresses and he can't edit any more? -lethe talk + 21:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Anything you can do to find sources for some of the unsourced sections would be appreciated. I'll have a look around too for some. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I guess the megabytes of private emails that Sarfatti has been posting to this talk page are not good sources, right? -lethe talk + 22:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid not. Wikipedia can't use itself as a source, plus we can't be certain Sarfatti posted any of it. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

See the new version of the Rodrigues paper cited below.

Quote in intro

Does anyone know who added this: "I do not invent nutty physics to replace mainstream physics. I use mainstream physics to investigate apparently nutty phenomena." I can't find an online source for it other than this article. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It was User:WAS 4.250 who added it in October [1] so I've left a note on his talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Also just noting here that I've currently got in the intro "He is regarded as "one of the leaders of the New Physics movement"," but I may delete it, because I'm not sure about the source, and it depends on what we're taking the "new physics" to mean. Einstein was arguably part of the "new physics," so I want to look around a bit to make sure the quote makes sense. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I've deleted it because I don't think the source is strong enough to support it. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Blog

How do we know this is Sarfatti's blog? [2] SlimVirgin (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

" Dr. Sarfatti's Daily Journal is now "blogged" at http://www.blogger.com as "Destiny Matrix"." says http://www.stardrive.org/
Thanks. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It's quite obviously his blog since stardrive is Sarfatti's site and you can match articles on the discussion forum with the blog. "Destiny Matrix" is the title of one of Sarfatti's books.

Image

I've added an image, which I'm claiming fair use for. However, I see a previous image was uploaded with permission but wasn't used, so if there's controversy regarding these images that I'm not aware of, feel free to remove it. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

New Versions of Archive Paper

General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology, abstract gr-qc/0602022

From: Jack Sarfatti [view email] Date (v1): Tue, 7 Feb 2006 08:39:00 GMT (801kb) Date (revised v2): Sun, 19 Feb 2006 03:50:47 GMT (608kb) Date (revised v3): Fri, 24 Feb 2006 20:43:34 GMT (754kb) Date (revised v4): Wed, 8 Mar 2006 18:51:11 GMT (807kb) Date (revised v5): Thu, 9 Mar 2006 05:17:26 GMT (828kb) Date (revised v6): Mon, 13 Mar 2006 16:20:35 GMT (738kb) Date (revised v7): Thu, 16 Mar 2006 04:51:26 GMT (691kb) Date (revised v8): Mon, 20 Mar 2006 20:34:30 GMT (879kb) Date (revised v9): Tue, 21 Mar 2006 04:13:39 GMT (903kb) Date (revised v10): Wed, 22 Mar 2006 21:25:49 GMT (841kb) Date (revised v11): Mon, 27 Mar 2006 05:09:30 GMT (801kb) Date (revised v12): Tue, 18 Apr 2006 20:18:39 GMT (998kb) Emergent Gravity: String Theory Without String Theory

Authors: Jack Sarfatti Comments: This 12th version adds a remark about DeSitter Space and Cartan forms. The formal math objections raised by Waldyr Rodrigues about the first version of this paper that I did not have 4 tetrads and 6 spin connections were based on his misreading of my notation. Professor Rodrigues wrote me that he has made similar formal objections about "twenty" other physicist's papers. Needs Acrobat 6 or later to read I derive the Einstein 1915 classical field theory of gravity with what resembles both a massive torsion field and the Calabi Yau degrees of freedom from a conjectured eight Goldstone phases of the cosmic inflation field provided that the full Poincare group is locally gauged and its Lorentz subgroup is spontaneously broken in the vacuum. What looks like both the t Hooft Susskind world hologram conjecture of volume without volume and the quantization of area in Planck units given by Bekenstein and Hawking seem to be natural consequences of the conjecture. Just as the Michelson Morley experiment gave a null result, this model predicts that the LHC will never find any viable dark matter exotic particles as a matter of fundamental principle, neither will any other conceivable dark matter detector. The Cambridge IofA dark matter virial speed of 9km/sec is questioned. A way to detect pocket universes in the cosmic landscape beyond all types of horizons bounded by null geodesics is suggested based on the work of Antony Valentini.

Also

General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology, abstract gr-qc/0602111

From: Waldyr A. Rodrigues Jr. [view email] Date (v1): Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:17:17 GMT (20kb) Date (revised v2): Mon, 27 Mar 2006 10:57:06 GMT (20kb) A Comment on Emergent Gravity

Authors: Waldyr A. Rodrigues Jr Comments: 21 pages. In this version some misprints have been corrected, two new references have been added and some (eventual) offensive observations have been deleted This paper is a set of notes that we wrote concerning the first version of Emergent Gravity [gr-qc/0602022]. It is our version of an exercise that we proposed to some of our students. The idea was to find mathematical errors and inconsistencies on some recent articles published in scientific journals and in the arXiv, and we did.

Note that Waldyr wrote to Sarfatti and others that the kinds of remarks he made about Sarfatti's paper he has also made about "twenty" other published physics papers by other physicists. Indeed Waldyr implies that clearly in his explicit comments cited above on the archive, which is the main channel of communication for working physicists all over the world. Also, even Sarfatti's first version of the paper was peer reviewed by several academic physicists or it would have never been allowed on the archive. -—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.124.65.148 (talk • contribs) . (aka the pltn13.pacbell.net anon)

Sockpuppets

A Bikini (talk • contribs) and 71.139.97.67 (talk • contribs) Rwill9955 (talk • contribs) definitely are not sockpuppets_of_JackSarfatti -—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.124.65.148 (talk • contribs) . (aka the pltn13.pacbell.net anon)