Talk:Jonathan Sarfati/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 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.
← Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 →

This is an archive and should not be edited agapetos_angel 01:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

Not happy about the current edits being made.

Firstly I don't like to see anonymous users (i.e. 58.162.252.67) make fairly controversial edits to a controversial page. I'm not sure what the official Wiki opinion on this. Let me know if you find out. I'll look too.

In the edits by 58.162.252.67

1) "deleted CJB's misquotes about homosexuality (he used "homonazi" to mean those who want to punish those who criticize homosexual behaviour)"

I'm quite happy for the editor to include this information. However I dispute that the whole paragraph should be removed. I think it is fairly relevant that Sarfati has made comments which would be grossly offensive to homosexuals.Christianjb 17:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Homonazi lacks intent to offend homosexuals, as feminazi lacks intent to offend feminists (or women, for that matter), as Nazi lacks intent to offend Germans. While is it probably true that the majority of homonazis are homosexuals, that the majority of feminazis are femanists (and women), and that the majority of Nazis were German, it lacks credibility to show offense of behalf of the whole for the overly sensitive and emotive reaction of the one (or the few). This is akin to saying that one who speaks out against terrorist Muslims insults all Muslims. agapetos_angel 02:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Christianjb decided to reply on my talk page (moved to his, under 'Sarfati') rather than respond here. I'll leave it to the reader to discern why or if that reply has merit, but I still contend what I said above, and which Christianjb has not refuted. The affront to the one (or few) is not indictive of the insult to the whole, nor to the intent of insult to the whole. agapetos_angel 02:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

2) ("(though for work unconnected to creationism)" is not true. real scientists who are/were biblical creationists)

Another removal. It's factually true that Safarti's publications in mainstream jounals were for work unconnected to creationism. This is quite important. If I get a PhD in Physical Chemistry and then expound upon cosmetic surgery touting my PhD, I think people should have the right to know that my PhD is in an unrelated field. (BTW, I do have a PhD in Physical Chemistry! Just like Sarfati.)

I'll give 58.162.252.67 a few hours to respond to these points. Otherwise I'll revert these two edits. I would like to see a compromise in which both points of view are reflected in the article.

Finally, I don't like 58.162.252.67 accusing me of "misquoting". There's really no need for finger pointing here. I fully sourced the quote and I tried to give it in its proper context. If you disagree, then let's have a reasonable discussion. Thanks Christianjb 17:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm waiting for "advocacy" regarding similar edits by 58.162.252.67 on the Answers in Genesis page. If anyone has any comments about this then let me know. Christianjb 22:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I have given anonymous editor 58.162.252.67 over 24 hours to reply to these comments on the talk page. No response so far. I am now going to reinsert the text which was removed. It is carefully sourced, pertinent and factually accurate. Without the possibility of such criticism this page is nothing but a vanity page. Christianjb 01:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Today we are again seeing edits from another (or possibly the same) anonymous user 156.110.211.130 removing text from the page critical of Sarfati. Once again the anonymous user has declined to discuss these points on the talk page as requested. In my opinion without such discussion about controversial statements, this page should be considered a vanity page.

I am not asking for the content of the anonymous editor to be removed. I am asking for alternative points of view to be shown. Christianjb 05:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry if agapetos_angel felt that I should have responded here instead of on his talk page. I'm happy for him to post anything on my talk page on this page. I am not keeping any secrets. Please go to my talk page to see my detailed reply- or if you want you can post it here. Thanks Christianjb 10:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
And SHE would ask that you refrain from cluttering my talk pages with drivel that doesn't belong there. If you have a reply, post it here. You speak of respect, but show little. I have no idea why you posted a copy of a letter on my talk pages, but it has been removed for pushing your own POV agenda. Replies belong where they are associated, not spread like spam everywhere else. You were personally offended, that's your thing. However, it doesn't make the original statement wrong or POV because of your offense. (And how many men would be called beloved (agapetos) angel? Good grief, man) agapetos_angel 01:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Also if agapetos_angel could refrain from interspersing his/her comments with mine. Please respond beneath my comments. This shows proper respect for me and for Wikipedia. Thanks. Christianjb 11:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
If you didn't ramble on about several different points in the same section, it would be simplier to respond. As it is, a verbose reply after your verbosity would be more confusing. Using indents fixes that issue. agapetos_angel 01:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
No- don't intersperse your comments. It chops up my text and doesn't show proper respect for the readers, for Wikipedia, or for my views. It makes this page much more difficult to read. Thanks, Christianjb 02:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Calling my response 'drivel' is insulting. I will not be responding to your criticism unless you can restate it in a less offensive manner. Please read No personal attacks. Thanks. Christianjb 02:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I apologize for calling you by the male pronoun. Agapetos is not a common name in Texas, and I'm unfamiliar with it. Still- no excuse for assuming you were male. I don't know enough about theology to know whether angels are male or female- and I've never met one or ever seen any evidence they exist- please excuse my mistake.Christianjb 02:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Agapetos is Greek for 'beloved' (agape = love), even in Texas agapetos_angel 03:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

(reducing indent) Archived, as discussion seems to be dropped with the editor recusing himself agapetos_angel 02:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Homonazis

How was the sentence

This usage would be generally considered offensive to homosexuals given their history of persecution during the Holocaust.

POV? Josh Parris#: 06:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The homosexual Ernst Röhm was one of the most responsible for Hitler's rise to power.58.162.252.67 14:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

How was the sentence

This usage may be considered offensive, given that adult male Roman Catholic priest molesters of female children are not generally referred to as "heterosexual priests" when referring to their crimes.

POV, especially when 100% of of "pedophile priests" molest children? Josh Parris#: 06:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

(Let me point out here that in my comments below I obviously misread comments from Josh Parris! My apologies! It's late where I am. Christianjb 07:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC))

Thanks for the comments. I don't understand your first comment. I'm pointing out the logical inconsistency:

  • Priest molesting male child -> Sarfati labels "gay priest"
  • Priest molesting female child -> Sarfati presumably labels "pedophile priest"
How silly. Some people are so sensitive. Sarfati's article made it clear what he meant. If a priest molests young men, as most of the offenders seem to do (and he pointed out that it's a tiny minority of priests), he is gay, not a pedophile. 58.162.252.67 14:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

You claim the second sentence is POV. Of course it is! There's nothing wrong with expressing a point of view attributable to a particular group in an article. e.g. Jews find antisemitic comments offensive. What is wrong is to attach a POV to the article. There's a clear distinction.

  • Green eggs are disgusting - > POV
  • Sam does not like green eggs -> A POV of Sam, not a POV of the article.

Thanks Christianjb 06:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

User:156.110.211.130 removed the second sentence here, claiming a WP:NPOV violation. But I don't see it as one. Perhaps User:156.110.211.130 or someone else can explain how it is POV? I would have thought This usage may be considered is offensive, given that adult male... would have been POV. The other sentence was removed without comment, so should be restored or explained (I presume that the same POV complaint applied) Josh Parris#: 06:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll endeavor to restore the sentence making it as clear as humanly possible that this is a point of view expressed by homosexuals who object to being labelled as nazis and fascists. If anyone can provide a source showing me that homosexuals like to be called nazis then it should be included. I think the gay-priest/pedophile-priest label at least indicates a possible logical inconsistency. If someone wants to show me where a male child molester of female children is referred to as "heterosexual criminal" instead of say.. "pedophile" then I also support that information being included. I don't want to exclude information from this page. Christianjb 07:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Once again, CJB can't read. Blind Freddie can see that Sarfati was referring to homosexuals who advocate jailing Christian dissenters to the pro-homosexual view. Nazis and other fascists also jailed dissenters to their politically approved view. Perhaps CJB sees nothing wrong with jailing pastors who preach from their religious text, the Bible, that homosexual acts are sinful. Yet CJB falsely accused Sarfati of using the term for homosexuals who objected to biblical injunctions against homosexual behavior.

=

The comment immediately above was unsigned which is not only confusing, but shows disrespect to me and to Wikipedia rules. Please sign in future. Thanks Christianjb 11:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't respond to what I perceive as insulting comments. If you can rephrase your question in a sensible manner I will endeavor to answer your questions. It would also help if you did this through an account, rather than as an anonymous user so I know who I'm talking to. Christianjb 11:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


I felt that the following text should be removed.

that a reader commended: Your Feb 6 response to the letter Objections to Homosexuality was so excellent I could scarcely believe it. Totally accepting of the person, totally factual and insightful. [1]

I am open to compromise on this issue. At the moment I feel that this is unencyclopedic puffery. It's part of a fan letter to Answers in Genesis and contains no information pertinent to the discussion. I really doubt that an encyclopedia article should be quoting fan letters. Christianjb 10:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, CBJ has misrepresented Sarfati severely, and this fan letter posted by another anon seems to balance CJB's bigoted insinuation that Sarfati hates homosexuals.58.162.252.67 14:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
If you can rephrase that statement in a non-insulting manner then I will endeavor to respond fully and honestly. Please reread No personal attacks. Thanks Christianjb 11:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
See the Answers In Genesis talk page for Christianjb's true feelings about the matter, complete with insults. Funny that he complains that everything he can't answer is an insult, while insulting in a worse manner elsewhere. agapetos_angel 03:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

(reducing indent) Archived, as discussion seems to be dropped with the disputing editor recusing himself agapetos_angel 02:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Come clean

I would personally like to know if Sarfati is an editor on this page. There's no hard rule explicitly forbidding someone from editing a page about themselves (though it is discouraged), but I would prefer that they didn't do it through an anonymous identity. Christianjb 23:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Would the appellation evolutionsux@yahoo be any more revealing? Most users, regardless of signing in or not, are anonymous. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the article. agapetos_angel 03:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, maybe you're right- I'm not 100% sure on this issue. I do know that no other encyclopedia (except maybe Who's Who) allows people to write their own Bio's. However, I do have some sympathy with the position that people ought to be able to defend themselves against scurrilous attacks on the internet- and they might prefer to do that anonymously. At the moment it seems like an imperfect system. I can see both sides of the issue. Christianjb 03:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
You know, I thought about this some more, and I think that it's just too difficult for me to make any more edits on this page. I restate that this page is turning out to be a vanity page about a very controversial figure, but there's little protection in place for the individual in question to adequately defend himself. I am uneasy either way. I will instead concentrate on Answers in Genesis, where I can make most of the same points. I have no problem with Sarfati himself, who is unknown to me as either a scientist or a chess player, though he appears to have had some success with both. I only know Sarfati through his published opinion essays, which I feel is ok to debate- but still- it makes me uneasy. I personally wish Sarfati best of luck with his chess playing.Christianjb 04:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

(reducing indent) Archived, as discussion seems to be dropped with the editor recusing himself agapetos_angel 02:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Authorship list

As it stands I think the sentence about "co-authoring a Nature paper when he was 22" sounds to my ears like vanity and puffery. Sarfati's name is fourth on the authorship list. This is hardly a great claim to fame. It's certainly something to be proud of, and it's worth noting that he published in an academic journal (given his current views). However, it's not a particularly notable achievement for an encyclopedia.

I added the disputed "his name is fourth on the authorship list" as perhaps an indication that this isn't a particularly notable achievement (even for a 22 year old) as far as encyclopedia mentions go.

This page is in grave danger of becoming a vanity page for Johnathan- who is certainly not a notable scientist with no particular scientific reputation. I'm not saying he wasn't a good scientist- he's just not famous enough for his scientific accomplishments to be trumped on a Wiki-page. I'm willing to bet that the first author of the paper doesn't have his own entry.

JS is known, not for his science, or particularly for his chess, but for making highly controversial statements. This Wikipedia page should reflect that.

Since Sarfati edits this page himself I think he has a duty to sign in, identify himself and answer this criticism.

Thanks, Christianjb 23:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Neither is the fact that he is married with one stepson, or commentary on one of his thousands of articles, but it didn't stop either from being included. You claim it's worth noting, then claim the opposite. This seems more like an attention-seeking ploy than a serious complaint. agapetos_angel 01:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure this comment is worth replying to given its insulting tone. If Agapetos wants to restate that comment in a less accusing manner then I will reply. Thanks Christianjb 02:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Stop complaining. Presumably a former NZ chess champion is known in NZ chess circles. And it is worthy to note that a leading creationist has shown himself to be a capable scientist, otherwise the likes of CJB would say "no creationist is a real scientist".
CJB has been on a constant campaign to denigrate Sarfati, and has made a number of demonstrably false statements, such is is lack of objectivity. Even when corrected, he finds another excuse to denigrate.02:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
If you want to sign your above comment I will respond. Thanks. Christianjb 02:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
See the Answers In Genesis talk page for Christianjb's true feelings about the matter, complete with insults. Funny that he complains that everything he can't answer is an insult, while insulting in a worse manner elsewhere. agapetos_angel 03:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
No- I have a policy of not responding to insult or personal attacks. There are many comments that I would like to respond to in detail- but I've decided that I should try and be consistent in my policy. Thanks. Christianjb 03:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
What a hypocrite. This is the guy who calls Answers in Genesis, and by implication their aupporters, "bunch of backwards despicable dishonest lying redneck fascist creeps." CJB likes to dish out the venom but can't take it.58.162.245.148 08:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
And I stand by my right to my personal opinions about an organization. For the purposes of editing a Wikipedia page it doesn't matter to me what your personal opinions are. They're personal. As I explained in some detail- I stated my personal opinions because of the continuing insinuations of other editors. I knew that this would be opening myself up to numerous cheap shots from anonymous editors. Please respect my rights to my opinions as I respect your rights to your opinions. I am not asking to convert anyone or offend anyone here. I don't believe anything I have said is any worse than the pages and pages of comment I've read on Answers in Genesis (some of it by Sarfati) regarding people with my politics. I assume that you being a supporter would agree with AiG- in which case you assume that people like me are on a mission to attack Christianity, increase abortions, increase murder, promote fascism etc. etc. Well it works both ways Mr/s anon reviewer, I find AiG's opinions offensive and you probably find my personal opinions offensive. I ain't being no hypocrite about this. Christianjb 09:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Also, as I said above (below?) I'm quitting this page. I wish all the anonymous editors here good luck and I wish Sarfati good luck with his chess. I'll probably see you on the AiG page. Christianjb 09:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

(reducing indent) Archived, as discussion seems to be dropped with the editor recusing himself agapetos_angel 02:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

I suggest we start a trivia section. I've seen these in many other entries. I used to post a lot at the Theology Web forum and many people thought Dr. Sarfati posted as a user name "Socrates." In fact, the jury is still out. Any thoughts? --Jason Gastrich 10:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Unsigned makes the odd suggestion that unsubstantiated rumour and innuendo belong in an encyclopedic article. A "Trivia" section should include tidbits like "Dr Sarfati likes playing Uno in his spare time". Gossip, regardless of the standing of this so-called 'jury', belongs in supermarket rags, not on Wikipedia. agapetos_angel 10:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Oops! Now, I signed. Sorry. It's REALLY late. --Jason Gastrich 10:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

(reducing indent) Archived, as discussion seems to be dropped with passage of time exceeding 30 days agapetos_angel 02:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

OEC rebuttals and other OT conversation

Ironicaly it seem from all this discussion that the most formalised rebuttals of Sarfati come from OEC Christians. Apparently he has been largely ignored by 'mainstream' science. This is a sure sign that they cannot address his arguments. David D. (Talk) 22:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, David, you draw an incorrect inferrence. Sarfati is ignored not because his arguments cannot be refuted (the average 9th grader could refute his arguments) but rather because they are not science and because few scientists feel a need to refute that which is clearly nonsense lest they lend it more credibility than it deserves. Jim62sch 23:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
As if Jim is in a position to know. In reality, they are rejected for ideological reasons, where materialism is ruled to be the only game in town.
Also, most of the rebuttals on that supposed OEC website are by a known atheist.220.245.180.133 01:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Given that many scientists (including evolutionary biologists) are religious( including for example Ken Miller) this first claim seems to be a bit hard to buy. Incidentally, do you have any source for the second claim? And is there a reason that you say "known atheist" for some reason the way you say that sounds a bit like someone in the 1950s talking about a "known communist." This conversation is getting rapidly very far from the purposes of this talk page, and it seems to me that by and large the disgagreements with agapetos_angel can be resolved through reasoned discussion. 220.245.180.133, I therefore urge you not engage in ad hominem attacks and extreme assertions. JoshuaZ 06:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
This ostensible OEC site publishes the work of a self-confessed atheist and apostate,[2], then pretends not to know of his antitheistic faith. Ken Miller is a Roman Catholic, but his views are for all practical purposes indistinguishable from atheism, as even many atheistic reviewers have noted. Note also, the Venona transcripts show that there were communists in high positions in the US government, and with what we know of the atrocities of Stalin and Mao, it's hard to deny that communism is evil to the core.220.245.180.133 08:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Are you implying that all atheists are communists. No worse, that all people that accept the theory of evolution are atheists and therefore must be communists? Actually that's not what you are claiming is it. Really its those who accept the theory of evolution --> atheists --> communists --> EVIL to the core. That makes no sense at all. I retract and apologise for that since i misread User:220.245.180.133 comments above. i now see they were direct references to Joshua above and not related. David D. (Talk) 09:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Anyway Henke claims to be an agnostic NOT an atheist. "Therefore, I prefer to be an honest agnostic with a clear conscience than a frustrated and self-deceived Bible fundamentalist." But you're right that he is no longer a Christian. However, Henke only wrote two of those articles and does not run the site.
Sarfati's Inconsistent Views on Photon Transmissions between Stars and in the Sun's Interior Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D.
If All Elephants and Other Proboscideans are "One Kind", Why Can't All Primates be "One Kind"? Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D.
The other articles were written by Greg Neyman who does claim to be a Christian.
"I saw no conflict between my faith and the science I was learning. [snip] For years, I had read the claims of young earth creationists, and shook my head in disbelief at the ignorance they displayed. With the coming of age of the internet, I decided to put my desire for geology and God on the internet, in the form of a website proclaiming old earth creationism. [snip] Since you can be a Christian and believe in an old earth, we can do away with all those faulty young earth arguments." quote from Neyman
Neyman wrote the following articles on the OEC site that refer to Jonathan Sarfati:
Refuting Compromise A Young Earth Book Review by Greg Neyman
Creation Science Claims -Are Dating Techniques Accurate? Greg Neyman
Yellowstone Petrified Forests by Greg Neyman
Is there a reason we should doubt Neyman? Is he evil too? David D. (Talk) 08:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Straw man arguments do you no credit. One should still doubt the sincerity of one who claims not to know of Henke's vocal apostasy (and there is little practical difference between atheism and agnosticism). And I didn't say that all atheists were communists, but was cautioning against the anti-anticommunism that's still fashionable among liberals, who turned a blind eye to communist atrocities.220.245.180.133 09:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
i had never even heard of Henke until I saw the OEC site let alone his religious beliefs. I was merely pointing out that OEC's, even, were criticising Sarfati. Is Neyman still a Christian? Apparently he is a geologist so he would represent another documneted critic if those essays have been published. David D. (Talk) 09:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
My comment about communism has been misintrepted I think. I was simply observing that whether or not such concerns were justified (I think they largely were, but as in many situations the concern was largely misdirected), the comment about "known atheist" sounds very similar. This should be a caus for alarm, unless one actually thinks of atheism as some sort of largescale threat. JoshuaZ 00:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
As if I'm in a position to know? Is there a secret Sarfati club that one must join in order to receive enlightenment? I realize that what I said is at odds with your opinion, but I sincerely doubt that that indicates any level of ignorance on my part, although the smug assertion (which is in keeping with Sarfati's modus operandi) that I am not in a position to know does appear to imply ignorance on the part of the anonymous accuser. (Of course, the quest for anonymity by the user raises questions as to what he/she might be hiding).Jim62sch 10:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Anon is hardly any different from Jim62sch ;)220.245.180.133 08:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
As for the second assertion, even if the person were an atheist (is that of the "card-carrying" variety?) the correct response is, so what? Again we see the casting of yet another issue into a Manichaean world of the righteous believers vs. the evil atheists. Sorry, but life is hardly that simple. Jim62sch 10:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
It is relevant if a professing it has been amply documented that materialism is accepted a priori, and papers questioning that haven't a chance of being published.220.245.180.133 08:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Try it again in English, please. I do, however sense the bitternes of someone who has gone through the process. Perhaps the reason to remain anonymous? Jim62sch 01:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Jim62sch, unless you are referring to your own anonymity in your user name, could you please get back on-topic and answer the points regarding the disputed section. Thank you agapetos_angel 01:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

(reducing indent) "As if I'm in a position to know?" was misinterpreted, I believe, Jim62sch. If you are not a creation scientist submitting papers, and having them rejected because of the aforementioned basis/bias, would you not agree that it places you outside the 'position to know'? Regardless, I make the respectful suggestion that cooler heads should prevail and comments of a personal nature could cease on all sides. Personal attacks are not appropriate from any corner. agapetos_angel 00:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

While this is still highly off topic, I am friends with at least one bio journal editor, and they report having close to zero YEC papers submitted in the last decade. This essay neatly skewers claims that science journals censor: http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000104.html Meanwhile the creationist and/or IDers in fact routinely censor: http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/05/teach_the_uhh_o.html . Claims of censorship by the science journals dishonest, uneccessary possibly projection. That dealt with, can we please get back onto the topic at hand?JoshuaZ 01:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
If there was any research, it would be out there - if not in journals, then somewhere. The Meyer's article is everywhere, despite the fact that it was retracted by the journal because it was dishonestly inserted. However, Meyer article is a review paper that suggests ID as an alternative to evolutionary explanations. It isn't a scientific examination of ID. The whole allegation that somehow creationist research is being blocked from peer-reviewed journals is nothing but slanderous propanganda. Colossians 3:9 might be a good place for these people who claim to be Christians. Guettarda 01:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Of course there are "close to zero YEC papers submitted"—why would creationists bother to waste their time submitting when there is strong evidence of censorship, as presented? Robert Gentry also submitted his radiohalo works with overt creationist conclusions, and were rejected for that reason, but accepted in other journals once the offending creationist statements were removed.220.245.180.133 02:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

(reducing indent) Archived, this one was questionable to me, but as the discussion seems to be off-topic and full of personal attacks, I've moved it here (another editor may disagree) agapetos_angel 02:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

POV/Near Vandalism

Homosexuals are now a politically protected victim group, about which it is verboten to say anything negative. And certain homonazis want Christians punished if they quote from the Bible against homosexual behavior. Indeed, 63-year-old Pastor Åke Green was jailed in Sweden for just that, because they have such a sodomofascist law restricting Christian freedom. Fortunately his conviction was overturned on appeal, to the ire of homosexual activists, by a higher court because it was such an egregious violation of Sweden’s free speech laws. [14].

This is POV and possibly vandalism. Therefore, I removed it. If someone wishes to re-word it in a NPOV manner, I would support this. Canadianism 01:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You need to read up on what POV means. It is not POV to cite the subject of the article in question, because it is a fact that he made this claim.220.245.180.133 01:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Mistaken. We should add quotation markes or itallics in order to avoid confusion. Reverted it back. Canadianism 01:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
One or the other, please. 220.245.180.133 07:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

(reducing indent) Archived, as discussion seems to be resolved agapetos_angel 02:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)