Talk:Jonathan Sarfati
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||||||
|
|||||||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chess. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-Importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is supported by the Messianic Judaism WikiProject.
This project provides a central approach to Messianic Judaism-related subjects on Wikipedia. |
|
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments | |
 |
Jonathan Sarfati is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
on January 31, 2007 Jonathan Sarfati Template:Result on 16 November 2006 Jonathan Sarfati
 |
This article was nominated for deletion | recently. The result of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{|Jonathan_Sarfati(2)}|the discussion]] was {|keep}. |
|
This article was nominated for deletion | recently. The result of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{|Jonathan_Sarfati}|the discussion]] was no consensus. |
|||Johnleemk | Talk 17:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC) |||Johnleemk | Talk 17:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC) |||Johnleemk | Talk 17:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC) (Others included in the bans, as per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/, are 220.245.180.133, 220.245.180.134, 220.245.180.130, 58.162.252.236, 58.162.255.242, 58.162.251.204, and 58.162.2.122. This list is not exclusive and the ban applies to any user, registered or not, who engages in the same type of tendentious editing as has been done by .)
 Archives |
|---|
Discussion has also occurred here: Talk:Jonathan_Sarfati/dispute.
Contents |
[edit] Section Order
Hi Ed,
I disagree with your re-ordering based on the intersection of these two points:
- His notability as chess player and as author are quantitatively indinstinguishable.
- The brevity of the Chess section allows for better readability and article flow.
--Otheus 19:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, but I still want to know whether he's a notable chess player who wrote some books; or a notable author who's good at chess. --Uncle Ed 19:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- After a google search, I discovered 80 times as many hits for creationist than chess player, so I reverted JoshuaZ. This, of course, will be my last reversion of the day! --Uncle Ed 20:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I can see there is a long history here, but I'm not going to dig through 5 archives! I perused one arbcom decision briefly and found this gem:
- Jonathan Sarfati is a creationist who was trained as a scientist. [1]
-
- Don't know where you found this, but it's not in the link you provided. --Otheus 20:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- I can see there is a long history here, but I'm not going to dig through 5 archives! I perused one arbcom decision briefly and found this gem:
-
-
-
- Go ahead and revert if you think I've missed something should be obvious to me. But afterwards, if you could point it out to me, I'd be much obliged. --Uncle Ed 20:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- *scratching head* Okay, for now, I'm not going to address the lead. I'm still addressing the article flow. Now on chess player vs. creationist, is there an arbcom ruling or policy saying that notability is measurable by google hits? I doubt that. Google results are skewed toward relevancy on the web, not toward relevancy in the media or in popular consciousness. But perhaps a comparison can be drawn. Find another chess player-author and see how many hits they get in proportion to each. JZ, what do you think? --Otheus 20:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Corrected link: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Agapetos_angel. I apologize, I got the rfc mixed up with the rfa. --Uncle Ed 20:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, I have no problem with "creationist trained as a scientist", but as expressed by JZ and in previous conversations, I think it would be better to have "chess master" or some such in the same breath. --Otheus 20:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- In other word's he's
- as famous for his advocacy of Creationism as he is for his skill in chess playing
- --Uncle Ed 20:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- In other word's he's
- I actually have no idea if he's as "famous", but notability is not something easily quantified. At any rate, I rewrote the lead to hopefully reflect consensus here. Comments? --Otheus 16:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Sure it is, counting the number of hits from a Google search puts the lie to that notion. If you have no idea what he's most notable for then perhaps you shouldn't be editing such a contentious article or least reading the archives and the related RFAR evidence. Your rewrite was less than neutral, elevating Sarfati as being most notable as a chess player and scientist despite his most notable activity, creationism, is easily verified as being his most notable activity as seen in the evidence presented here already. Please read the archives; this very point was discussed at great length and is long settled, or at least read the article. Had you you'd know that Sarfati has not been recently published as a scientist nor has he been competing at a notable level in chess but what he has been doing it writing about creationism. FeloniousMonk 03:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- This is unwieldy. Let's break it down.
- First, this diff[2] by Steve Dafour first introduced Sarfati's chess playing on par with his CMI role. This originally passed your scrutiny [here and in subsequent edits, so I did not see why you would object to it. And yes, please do read the archives, notably: [3].
- Second, about notability. I think you (plural) are confusing notable for most recently known. This is a very important distinction. Google is not an indicator of notability. Google does not adequately represent material before 1992, before the WWW was conceived. His chess playing days peaked in the late 80's, but continued in the early 90's. Further, more recent material that is of a contentious origin, such as his writings on ID, than something the press generally has little interest in, such as chess. I would also argue that being a part of chess history is inherently more notable than being a writer for a fringe group of scientists.
- Third, I agree his PhD is not implicitly notable. However, I was attempting to flesh out the Arbcom's summary that he is "trained as a scientist". I am trained as a scientist, but I do not have a PhD, so in that context, it is notable. Being "trained as a scientist" is weak and vague.
- You said, "if you have no idea what he's most notable for then perhaps you shouldn't be editing such a contentious article or least reading the archives and the related RFAR evidence." I have not been able to find the RFAR evidence for this article. I kept asking for it, but no one provided a link. As far as the archives, I did read a fair amount, but it sounded like siamese cats in heat more than it did a talk section.
- Also, please use the word 'lie' more carefully. I believe you meant "falsehood" or something similar. There was no intent on my part to deceive.
- I have no intention of getting in an edit war, but I believe it is not good style per WP:LEAD or fair to Mr. Sarfati to leave this lead as is for too long. I do note, of course, that it had been this way for almost a year before February. But my intent is to make the article better, not to diminish Sarfati's career in any way. I came across the article in early February, and only Ed Poor's recent change seemed to diminish his notability as chess player.
- --Otheus 10:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Bios, indeed all articles here, are meant to represent the current state of affairs, so Google is indeed a good indicator of of a person's current notability and your reasoning that "Google does not adequately represent material before 1992, before the WWW was conceived" is a non sequitur. It is easily verifiable and not in dispute that the preponderance of Sarfati's work in the last ten years has been in creationism, not chess or science, so representing anything else violates the undue weight clause of NPOV. FeloniousMonk 18:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Though I don't fully agree with the above, would you consider this as acceptable?
- Jonathan D. Sarfati (born October 1, 1964) is a scientifically-trained creationist and master chess player. His writings on creationism have attracted attention from supporters and opponents.
- This repositioning is done mainly for readability and accessibility, per WP:LEAD guidelines. --Otheus 15:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] External Links
Hi,
I have removed 2 of the links on "opposing views." The first one (the AIC link) leads to "page not found." I'm guessing that it has been moved; maybe someone or myself can update this later. The other page (a science organision) does not mention Sarfati on the page itself. If there are "good" websites addressing Sarfati's claims, then they should be added. Does he have his own page on Talk origins?
DarthSidious 14:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Yoda
- The view of the NAS on creationism is indeed relevant to a creationist's article, and the status of Sarfati as a practicing scientist has previously been discussed and found to be wanting, so adding him that category is not warranted, see archived dicussions. I've restored the NAS link and removed the category, but let the removal of the link that 404s stand. FeloniousMonk 04:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Reverted to version that was protected to comply with existing consensus. 121.208.181.37 13:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Although you are wrong, I can't really be bothered arguing over the "scientist" category. But the NAS link doesn't even mention Sarfati! Unless it includes a page on Sarfati himself, it should not be included. So I'm removing it. Do you think that any other page on WP follows your logic?
DarthSidious 07:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious
[edit] Letter to Nature
The submission to Nature was a paper, not a note. See the provided citation in article, and past discussion in Talk. 121.208.180.8 18:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I also have a problem with note. Nature has articles, letters and communications (or similar). Where is this note terminiology coming from? i have reverted back to paper which seemed perfectly accurate. David D. (Talk) 18:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Note is accurate, letters in Nature are not the same as a peer reviewed article in Nature, so we need to make the distinction. Also, please read the archives, this was previously discussed and part of an Arbcom case and has been long resolved and your reverting is not helping, particularly since our anon friend here, 121., is walking in the footsteps of a party banned by the arbcom ruling from editing this article. FeloniousMonk 19:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- Actually FM, if I recall when this was discussed last time (prior to the Arbcom) the decision was made was that this was a paper. Letters are fully peer reviewed in Nature (Letters to the Editor or similar items are not). This is peer reviewed paper (it might make sense to note that Sarfati is one of many authors but that's a separate issue). JoshuaZ 19:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I am no fan of creationists but to describe a letter to nature a note as FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs) is insisting on doing here appears to be a tactic to trivialise the work. Basically he is creationist baiting and that will make them a pain in the butt for everyone else too. I ask again where is your justification for calling this paper, and it is a paper, a note? David D. (Talk) 19:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- Hey FM, i just thought you might actually think this is a letter to the editor? You do realise that Letters to Nature are not the same thing as letters to the editor, right? If not how can you edit war over something you have not even read? If you had read the paper you would have known it was not a note. David D. (Talk) 19:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
My dad was always justly proud of his letter to Nature (link) I don't think calling these papers "notes" is at all helpful. Tim Vickers 19:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Found the previous discussion on this topic Talk:Jonathan_Sarfati/dispute#D2 which may be of note. The consensus there seemed to be that "paper" was preferable to "letter". JoshuaZ 19:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Beware the anon. •Jim62sch• 21:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Tautology in first line
User:Orangemarlin, what is POV about the line I removed? My problem is that it is a tautology and adds nothing to the article. Every author in existence has attracted attention by their supporters and critics. If they hadn't they wouldn't have supporters and critics. And if they hadn't 'attracted attention' they would be sufficiently notable for WP. What does this sentence add to a reader's understanding of Sarfati? Ashmoo 14:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] In the creationism section
Does self-reproduction = agamogenesis? It (self-reproduction) was a red-link (I unlinked it). •Jim62sch•dissera! 20:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- From the link he seems to be talking about molecules not cells. David D. (Talk) 20:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
That's what I thought, but "reproduction" kind of threw me. It reads much better now, thanks. (BTW, I added a link to Self-replication) •Jim62sch•dissera! 21:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's a good link, I've never seen that article before now. David D. (Talk) 21:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Davescot banned him from uncommondescent! Midnight Gardener (talk) 16:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Assorted Nitpicks
Just a couple of points to consider.
The statement that Sarfati has an advanced degree in chemistry seems inexact. Later in the article it states that he also has a Ph.D which is a postgraduate qualification but not a degree.
Also if he has a Ph.D then should it not be Dr. Sarfati?Colonial from the Middle Island (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- Are Francis Crick, Fred Sanger and Linus Pauling Dr. ##### in their articles? David D. (Talk) 16:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Dude look in the manual of style, NO one should be called "Dr so and so" in an article regardless of their academic accomplishments. If you see other articles that describe someone as "Dr" then fix it. Midnight Gardener (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
