Talk:Jack Sarfatti

Autobiography
"This article is an autobiography or has been extensively edited by the subject or by someone connected to the subject. (December 2018)" Why is that bad? It seems completely nonsensical and stupid. So, someone who has no connection with the person is better qualified than someone who is? That is really stupid woke lunacy. Not only that, it's completely hypocritical and double-standard look for example at the Wiki page on say David Chappelle. It's obviously written by highly paid PR men connected to Chappelle and there is nothing wrong with that. 2601:646:102:27F0:8CF:A196:2F9C:3EBD (talk) 06:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You are starting from the thoroughly false assumption that people always tell the truth about themselves. The people who made the Wikipedia rules actually thought longer and deeper about them than you did.
 * About your Chappelle reasoning, whoever he may be: See WP:OTHERCONTENT. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This page is for improving the article; it is not a blog for expressing uninformed rants about Wikipedia policy. 2600:8802:571B:E00:A526:EFC2:B8AD:93C (talk) 02:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Tags
I have re-tagged the article with Cleanup weighted and POV. There are plenty of sources that criticize Sarfatti, such as this article from the Skeptical Inquirer which says [i]t occurs to me that Scarfatti's [sic] Internet Science Education Project with all its scientific double talk makes perfect sense if we consider it to be parody. You can also look in the seven(!) archives of this talk page for more, including some legal threats by (someone claiming to be) Sarfatti himself. (The account making said claim was personally banned – not just blocked – by Jimbo.) While older revisions on the page were biased against Sarfatti, the current version excludes criticism of his ideas. Therefore, I have re-added the aforementioned tags. House Blaster talk 00:57, 31 December 2023 (UTC)