Talk:Jack Sarfatti/Archive 6

Citations needed
I just went through and sprinkled some citation needed tags in the article for some facts that appear to me to be uncontentious but which still should be sourced. We should try to work through each of them systematically if we can.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The Loungs song "Jack Sarfatti"
We write: "In 2010, The Loungs released a music video for their 2008 song "Jack Sarfatti".". A quick search in google suggests that this is very likely to be true, but I'm having a bit of trouble finding an actually notable source. A search in the google news archive turns up nothing. The band itself appears to me to be a borderline notable indie band, see The Loungs. What I am unsure about is this: absent a reliable source commenting on this band writing this song with this title, it is unclear to me that the song is in any way a notable event in the biography of Dr. Sarfatti. Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia.

[It's not? Just kidding. V :-)] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.162.217 (talk) 09:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I am leaving it in for now, seeing no reason to doubt the truth of it, and merely want to raise the question of notability. I'll remove it in a couple of days unless we reach consensus otherwise.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I removed it (before reading this comment) as trivia.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that's fine, of course. Unless someone gives a good reason it should be back in, it should stay out.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

/* note - BLPN - */
note - there has been a complaint from the subject of the biography and a report at the BLP noticeboard here. Off2riorob (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I saw the BLPN posts, so I've gone into the article's history to retrieve bits and pieces from older versions, including the lead and the Works section. I've also added some new material, and some sources, and fixed some formatting. See here. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 13:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was having a little look and although I was primarily a bit nervous about your large expansion it does look to be well cited and generally noteworthy and neutrally presented. Off2riorob (talk) 14:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I've tried to stick to what reliable sources say. It means a few points are left hanging a little, but that might be unavoidable. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 14:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Your rewrite and replacement from previous decent versions is a much more informative, policy compliant and well supported in reliable externals, thank you. Off2riorob (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And a lot of work, too.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I especially appreciated the edit to improve the infobox picture, that improvement was towards the top of my wish list. Off2riorob (talk) 00:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks to you both for the feedback, and I'm glad you like it. :) SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 00:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Caption
Hi Bbb, I hope you don't mind, but I removed the caption saying the photo was taken in 2007. It's not clear where that date comes from, or that it's correct, so I thought it best to use the image without a caption just to be safe. SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 14:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Conference Invitations Withdrawn
"Sarfatti was one of three scientists who had their invitations to a conference of physicists withdrawn in 2010, because of their research into the relationship between quantum physics and the paranormal. Physicist Antony Valentini of Imperial College, London, withdrew the invitation to the meeting, which was held in the Tuscan Alps by Mike Towler, a research fellow at the University of Cambridge's Cavendish Laboratory. Physicists F. David Peat, David Bohm's biographer, and Brian Josephson, head of the Mind-Matter Unification Project at Cambridge, were uninvited for the same reason, though their invitations were later restored." This seems really trivial, negative, and useless in a bio. I removed it as not belonging in a section devoted to ideas. It's back without discussion. I'd like to remove it again. &rarr;  Stani Stani  15:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * For the record, the three of us were all disinvited for different reasons. The THE article correctly indicates that this (paranormal interest) was the reason given for my own disinvitation, but this reason did not apply to Jack. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've clarified that here. We can only go by what's been reliably published, so I can't include references to the readers' comments after the article. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 16:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It's significant and interesting that he was invited to what was an important and mainstream conference in 2010, and interesting again that the invitation was then withdrawn because of his link to parapsychology research. I can't see any reason to remove it, and the source is a high-quality one (Times Higher Education). SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 15:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I am a bit on the fence regarding this, its a bit trivial really, the citation is quite strong but the story is not notable because of Sarfatti and his name is only mentioned a single time at the end of the article, the notability of the story seems to actually be about the nobel winner, and although three people were removed from the invitation the article only gives the reasons for the two other people. It appears that the refusal was then lifted to all but Sarfatti because he posted off a load on emails... I am a little more worried about the posts in the comment section from someone claiming to be the Sarfatti, I haven't read them all, how are we to know those posts are from him, is it possible to post the citation without the comment section? Off2riorob (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Michael Towler totally distorted the truth about the quantity of emails from me by a factor of ten as well as their content. He got upset with emails from Colin Bennett and blamed me for that. Remember it was my idea to have this meeting in the first place and if you go to my mobile.me gallery you will see a video of me and Michael Towler at Cambridge Sept 2009. I decided to make a cause celebre in the media about it, which I did and obviously I succeeded. Had it been only me I would not have. But the insult to Josephson was unpardonable. -- Jack Sarfatti, Kensington Church Street Starbucks London UK 4-29-11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.227.1 (talk) 06:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * - http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=411401


 * I'm sure the Times would have made sure the posts were from Sarfatti, given that he was in touch with them about it; and he would have requested that any not from him be removed. I don't know how to post a link to the article without the comments.


 * I see it as significant in part because it shows how strongly most of the mainstream physics community feels about research into parapsychology; that no matter how eminent a person might be, there's a risk of being ostracized if you express an interest in it. That speaks directly to some of the alienation Sarfatti has experienced (though not all of it; some of it is unrelated to that). SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 16:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, as you say, he does seem to be a bit of a controversial character so we should leave a little controversy in the article. The content is presented in a npov manner just weight might be an issue, it does offer insight into his rejection from some of the mainstream. I can't see much reason to remove it, it is an interesting and insightful to read the content in the article and comments section. I think your right that it does look likely to be him although the paper rejects any responsibility for the comments at the bottom and I notice the comment about the CIA claim has also an official retraction from the publisher. - reading the chat in the comments there reminds me of some discussions here. note - I don't think its possible to link to just an article without the comment section.Off2riorob (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Disclaimer: All user contributions posted on this site are those of the user ONLY and NOT those of TSL Education Ltd or its associated trademarks, websites and services. TSL Education Ltd does not necessarily endorse, support, sanction, encourage, verify or agree with any comments, opinions or statements or other content provided by users.


 * If you think the comments are too problematic, we could cite the article without linking to it, though my own preference would be to leave the link in. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 16:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the more I read them the more clear it all becomes that it is those guys. I was just searching Sarfattis blog for the updates mentioned in the comments section to see what he published about it but didn't find anything about it yet - anyways, I don't see anything unduly excessive just a bit of a spat. Off2riorob (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for checking. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 17:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a negative entry, in a BLP - we have a higher standard for inserting such stuff in a BLP - I believe it is not on topic as an idea, it is not typical of his career or newsworthy, and attracts negative attention because this mention will now rank high in a Google search for his name. This reflects poorly on Sarfatti, Wikipedia, and the editor who reverts it back into the article.  &rarr;  Stani Stani  04:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see it as negative, or as reflecting poorly on him; I see it as interesting and significant that he's still academically involved, even if not employed and publishing within academia. And of course also interesting that people (Sarfatti and others) are being uninvited to academic conferences because of an interest in parapsychology. If you read around about this, others appear to find it significant too—Times Higher Education likely wouldn't have written about it otherwise. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 14:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Disagree, and also it is not on topic. Will remove it at some point unless good reason given to include.  &rarr;  Stani Stani  15:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Stani, you've arrived here after discussion on an off-wiki site after having shown no prior interest in the article, or knowledge of the subject matter, which isn't helpful. The article's in the process of being rewritten, and will continue to have material added, moved, and removed, depending on how the research goes. It has been a troubled article for a long time, so I'd appreciate it if you'd allow time for it to settle down, rather than starting edit wars about particular sections that are in flux. Writing takes time. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 16:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I am assuming good faith on your part, and I am not edit warring. Please do not make assumptions of ignorance or bad faith on my part. Note I am following policy, and I assure you I will continue to do so. The insertion of this bit and its reversion back into the article, become increasingly problematic as evidence emerges that Sarfatti probably was disinvited for a different reason. Don't make it look like I parachuted in here from elsewhere - I have a thousand edits to Wikipedia and am an editor in good standing with no POV on any article I edit. An apology from you and strikethrough of your comments would be appreciated.  &rarr;  Stani Stani  18:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, Stan, it's just that I've seen you involve yourself before in articles (al-Durrah and LaRouche, for example), after they were discussed off-wiki. But if you're willing to AGF, I'm happy to do the same. As I said, the writing and research take some time, so this is very much a work-in-progress, and it would help a lot if you'd give it time to develop. Once a first draft is in place, it'll be easier to assess how appropriate each part is. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 19:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I edit articles for a wide variety of reasons. Sometimes I am researching a subject and I see a typo or a slur. Sometimes I am reading a blog, or the Review, or a periodical, and I see a Wikipedia article mentioned. Then I go have a look at the article and if needed add or subtract. My edits are made to improve, as I assume yours are. By the by, if you must use a diminutive form of my user name, please use Stani, not Stan. All right. You want time to write a draft in the main Wiki space. I will come back in about a week and review the article. Good luck with your work.  &rarr;  Stani Stani  21:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's much appreciated SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 21:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Had a look at the article and support the changes to the tidbit about the withdrawn invitation. Overall article is much better than previous.  &rarr;  Stani Stani  07:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I'm grateful for the feedback. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 08:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Nice to see Jack is back writing his own Wikipedia article again - I thought he was banned? I was just looking into this conference disinvite thing (which does seem to be relevant mainly for Josephson because of the Nobel prize thing - I'm surprised to see it here). It looks like there's stacks of info all over the internet - but it seems to me that much of the above only cites the POV of Sarfatti et al which makes me wonder what kind of agenda is going on here? I found a few bits of new info: above Sarfatti says "Michael Towler totally distorted the truth about the quantity of emails from me by a factor of ten as well as their content." This seems to be addressed in the comments on a Nature blog here. Sarfatti says he wrote a dozen emails - Towler shows a copy of his inbox containing one hundred in less than a week. Whoops - Jack caught out lying yet again. According to the comments on the THE article, Towler says 'the reason Jack was uninvited was stated by Valentini to be that "despite [Jack's] passion for theoretical physics", he failed to "adhere to high standards of argument and of presentation". Now this was definitely a euphemism, but not for "believing in the paranormal". Count his published papers'. OK. Nothing to do with parapsychology - nobody above, including Prof. Josephson, seems to state this. What else - I was trying to find out who his friend 'Colin Bennett' was that Sarfatti claims was upsetting Towler - have a look at this (big page - search for 'Towler'). No wonder Towler was creeped out. On the Nature blog above, Sarfatti writes of 'funny appropriate jokes by Colin Bennett' - it looks like homophobic misogynistic bullshit to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.167.40 (talk) 00:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Jack Sarfatti approves version of April 27, 2011
Two minor factual corrections. Sarfatti was not funded by SRI in 1974. He was on a travel grant from NSF and also had private funding from Bob Toben for his work on the book Space-Time and Beyond with Fred Alan Wolf.

Brian Josephson and David Peat did not attend the Towler meeting in the end finding Valentini's behavior and the consequent reactions of Towler uncomfortable. In particular, Towler blames Sarfatti for Colin Bennett's writings about the unfortunate incident. In Towler's defence he probably would have stopped Valentini's unilateral act had he not been caught in the aftermath of the Iceland volcano in a car on way back to Cambridge from Italy held up in traffic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.162.217 (talk) 09:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed, Towler did try to dissuade Valentini but was unsuccessful. I gather Peat did intend to go at one time but later abandoned the idea, perhaps because he did not think the meeting would be of great interest to him (it had become more technical than originally envisaged by Towler).  I decided not to go for similar reasons, but sent a video of a past lecture which I gather was played at the meeting. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Re communication by User:SlimVirgin on the question of why JS was rejected, Towler, in his 'circular 3' to all invitees, explained the reasons for the disinvitations and JSs was on very general grounds, with no reference to his non-traditional interests. It seems to me that the best thing for the article since this is pretty nebulous would just to be to delete the last sentence ("according to the THE ...") and instead attach the THE ref. to the preceding sentence as verification of his uninvitation.  I'll leave you to do this.


 * By the way, this para could do with rewording given that it says Towler organised it instead of saying it was jointly organised by MT and AV, though this is implied by subsequent text.


 * I must say it is nice to be on a page where facts rather than polemic are considered the most important issue! --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks to both of you, this is very helpful. I've tweaked the issue of funding from the SRI; bear in mind that I can only use what has been published, so if you know of any further sources that would be helpful. And I'll tweak the conference paragraph too.


 * The article should improve further once David Kaiser's book is published. I'm currently relying on his synopsis, and on the lecture he gave about it, which is fascinating. Once the book itself is out, I'll hopefully be able to add more detail and precision. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 14:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The philosopher Robert Kane mentions in The Oxford Handbook of Free Will (Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 110) that Sarfatti has written an unpublished theory of consciousness and freewill based on quantum theory. Kane gives the URL as http://stardrive.org/title.shtml, but it's not there, and I can't find it in the Internet Archive. Does anyone know where it is now? SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 20:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this it?  &rarr;  Stani  Stani  05:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)