Talk:Jonathan Sarfati

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.
 * Don't know where you found this, but it's not in the link you provided. --Otheus 20:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 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: 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)


 * 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 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:.
 * 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)

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 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 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.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  21:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Except in this case the anon is correct. David D. (Talk) 00:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

In the creationism section
Does self-reproduction = agamogenesis? It (self-reproduction) was a red-link (I unlinked it). &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 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) &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 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)

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)
 * It was a rhetorical question. David D. (Talk) 21:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Jonathan

I do see Jonathan Sarfati referred to as "Dr. Sarfati," and sometimes refer to him that way myself. Just fyi. 66.57.83.143 (talk) 09:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC) Whoops, wasn't logged in. the_paccagnellan (talk) 09:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Lack of significant third party sourcing
Way too much of this article is sourced to the CMI website. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Added cites to chess 76.20.213.207 (talk) 20:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * One of which is not third-party, the other of which makes no mention of his doing so at creation(ist) conferences. I have therefore removed the claim that he is "known" for this, lacking a third-party source. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've replaced the sources and the text that went with them. Two sources mention him by name and state he plays blindfold chess, a September 2011 Tulsa newspaper article, and a website for an August 2011 Canadian conference, which advertised it as one of several special events for attendees. Both sources are recent and relevant, and should be considered valid, IMO. 76.20.213.207 (talk) 06:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And I've tagged them -- neither creation.com nor creation2011.com are third party, and the September 2011 Tulsa newspaper article did not state that he gives "blindfold chess exhibitions at creation conferences" -- only that he has given blindfold chess exhibitions at some unspecified location. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Edit conflict: Other sources, from an observers at a 2005 conference: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/07/report-on-the-2-1.html, http://www.jared-lee.com/Photos/Summer05/AiG%20MEGA%20Conference/index.html http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpb.aspx?pageid=8589951934 76.20.213.207 (talk) 06:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC) ETA: That's cool.  I've already spent enough time on this. 76.20.213.207 (talk) 06:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * None of these sources meet the standard required for a WP:BLP, and only one of them mentions him playing blind chess at a creationist conference. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Which is why they are here, rather than in the article ;) 76.20.213.207 (talk) 07:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Pseudoscientist
Cartwright & Theobald 2001 cited in the article, "In conclusion, creationists who use Scadding (1981) to support their contention that vestigial organs are not evidence for evolution are using a paper published in a minor, eclectic journal that was refuted soon after it initially came out. They cite someone who was wrong as "proof" that they are right. As such, it is another example of poor scholarship performed for the sake of pseudoscience." In an article that discusses Sarfati's publications in purportedly scientific journals. If one's practice in a journal article is described as "poor scholarship for the sake of pseudoscience" one has been described as a pseudoscientist. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The source does not, in fact, describe the subject as a "pseudoscientist. Per WP:BLPCAT, the category should be removed. -- 101.117.58.97 (talk) 06:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC) — 101.117.58.97 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience probably contains more information than you ever wanted to know. Creationism is indeed pseudoscience, but to slap that label on someone is contentious and will offend a lot of people. Is it really worth starting an edit war over a category? It would probably be better for wikipedia if this category didn't exist. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I've boldly jumped in with a proposed solution on the article. Seems to be an ideal solution. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 12:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, it agrees with my own opinions on the subject... but it may not comply with Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. From my point of view creationism has no more validity than flat-earthism, but I realise that a lot of people think differently and would be offended by such a characterisation. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:NPOV and WP:BLP require that we frame our articles from the mainstream view and are accurate to sources, not that we are nice to an article subject. Respectful, yes, and not perjorative either, which is why I don't like the label "pseudoscientist" in this context. I would suggest we try to incorporate the new category "Fruitloop" as another solution, or perhaps "Batshit insane ideas"? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 12:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Tagging people as "fruitloop" would be a little unencyclopedic, don't you think? Wikipedia's strength is (or should be) giving solidly referenced facts. Simply expressing disapproval in Wikipedia's voice is counterproductive, which is why I don't like pejorative tags. They are also potentially a breach of libel law. -- 101.117.108.195 (talk) 22:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Neither creationism nor evolutionism / Darwinism are "science" per se, but rather they are competing interpretive frameworks (worldviews) through which science is done. Science itself would refer to the basic facts that both frameworks are operating on. Example: the scientific fact would be the presence of a certain fossil in a certain stratum at a certain location. The interpretation would be either that it died there millions of years ago or that it was buried there as part of a global (Noahic) flood. For something to be "pseudoscience" it would have to misrepresent facts, rather than simply offering a different, albeit unpopular, interpretation of those facts as does the creation viewpoint.--Kanbei85 (talk) 21:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Your first sentence is not a fact, but your own, massively underinformed viewpoint. Since we follow reliable sources and not the random opinions of random people on the internet, the article stays the way its is.
 * Misrepresenting facts is exactly what creationism does: "Scientist X wrote Y" can be a fact, and it can be a crude misrepresentation. When a creationist says "Scientist X wrote Y", it is practically always a crude misrepresentation. Either, instead of "Y", the scientist really wrote "In earlier centuries, people believed Y" or "Creationist Z says Y" or "Y*" which sounds simlar to laymen but is really totally different, or X is not really a scientist, or X is an expert for something else and was talking through his hat, or it is some similar slight of hand. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Your comment here amounts to nothing more than a baseless, content-less accusation against (all?) creation scientists. A nice indication of your severe bias, and thus your motivation to want to keep this article non-neutral (see below discussion on non-neutral, irrelevant quote from Eugenie Scott). --Kanbei85 (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I heard all that before. Yeah, we reality-based editors are "biased" because we don't accept whatever bollocks some user wants to add to an article. Astrology, dowsing, perpetual motion, creationism, climate change denial, whatever. See below. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Your opinion that creation science is bollocks does not belong in the content of Wikipedia, which is supposed to be a fact-based encyclopedia, neutral in point of view. It's sad that I have to even argue that point. This is why there is such a problem with bad content online today. --Kanbei85 (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Creation science is clearly identified as an example of pseudoscience in WP:FRINGE, because Wikipedia is a fact-based encyclopedia and the facts don't support it. This talk page is absolutely not the place to try and argue about that. --tronvillain (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Arguing about creation science is not the point. The point is this article is not neutral or objective as a result of the pointless inclusion of a smear against one of Dr. Sarfati's works by someone who by all indications probably didn't even read it. This article is not about creation science, but rather is a bio page for a scientist, author and chess player. You have not given any reason why that non-sequitur belongs there, nor has anyone else. It's just a nice little jab against him because he holds an unpopular view that the editors here would like to ridicule.--Kanbei85 (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ad hominem arguments indicate that you aren't dealing with science anyway. Same with credentialist types of arguments. I'd object to calling it 'creation science'. It isn't science plain and simple. Same does however apply to Evolution. Both are philosophical points of views. And both are originally from theological debates. Still the background of authors has to be looked into. As far as Sarfati is concerned his ethnic background as well as his religious point of view shouldn't be ignored. It's clear that he had a Jewish background, but is he (still) a Judaist or not? Or is he a Christian? More specifics needed. 105.4.3.134 (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Book sources
Looking through the bibliography, I'm not finding sources for the books. Any help? --Pete (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2015 (UTC) This article looks to be an advert for book sales through CMI, from which most of the article is sourced (chess aside). --Pete (talk) 22:46, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jonathan Sarfati. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to https://67.43.11.40/showpost.php?p=17980&postcount=35
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120322121835/http://www.croydonchess.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=nuUo7sinjIs%3D&tabid=64&mid=476&language=en-AU to http://www.croydonchess.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=nuUo7sinjIs%3D&tabid=64&mid=476&language=en-AU
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://members.optusnet.com.au/loganchess/montreux/montreux.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jonathan Sarfati. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080318234430/http://www.poisonpawn.co.nz/titles.htm to http://www.poisonpawn.co.nz/titles.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Motion To Strike
The following quote,

' Eugenie Scott and Glenn Branch of the National Center for Science Education called Sarfati's Refuting Evolution a "crude piece of propaganda". '

Is both irrelevant here and a clear violation of neutral tone. There is no reason to include this quip here, and certainly we could get into a long edit war if we wanted to start quoting things for and against Dr. Sarfati's work on here. I am moving to have this sentence removed completely. If no one responds I will take this action myself.

--Kanbei85 (talk) 12:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Kanbei85
 * No. Reliable source, true sentence. See WP:FRINGE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Whether the source is reliable is not the point (and that is debatable based on your viewpoint). The point is that there is no reason to include it and it makes the article non-neutral. We might just as well include a quote by some other scientist about how great the work is! Whether Eugenie Scott likes 'Refuting Evolution' has no place in this article. Merely saying it is a 'true sentence' does not defend its inclusion here.--Kanbei85 (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've restored it. We aren't trying to be neutral, we are trying to have a neutral point of view " which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." As we are also a mainstream encyclopedia, our articles on fringe subjects are always meant to make it clear that the subject is fringe. Doug Weller  talk 16:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Ah, my comments are clearly a waste of time because you've been told this more than once, but still choose to ignore it. Doug Weller  talk 16:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is clearly biased enough against the creation viewpoint as it is; after all, since Sarfati's page links to the Creation Science page, which overtly and falsely calls it 'pseudoscience', I think it is clear enough that this topic is 'fringe'. There is simply no justifiable reason to include a random negative quote there by Eugenie Scott-- a complete non-sequitur! Just a blatant attempt to bash and downplay Dr. Sarfati's work in a supposedly 'neutral-point-of-view' encyclopedia. I maintain this sentence is out of place. If you want to make it clear the topic is 'fringe', there is a way to do that while still maintaining neutral tone and not calling Dr. Sarfati's work crude propaganda, which it is not. For example, a statement like, "Dr. Sarfati's views run contrary to mainstream scientific consensus". --Kanbei85 (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Your opinion on Sarfati's crude propaganda does not matter. Scott's does. Bye. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not about anyone's opinion of Sarfati or his work! This is about maintaining a semblance of neutrality as an encyclopedia, which is supposed to be an unbiased source of information. If the concern is that the page must "make it clear" that it is a so-called fringe view, that can be achieved in a neutral way. Having that quote there is just terrible writing for an encyclopedia article. It reads more like a web article from a partisan newspaper site.--Kanbei85 (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Quoting an accurate description of a fringe theory is no in any sense a violation of WP:NPOV. --tronvillain (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) There is nothing accurate about that description. Have you read Refuting Evolution? It is well-researched and well-argued. Nothing crude about it, and it is not propaganda, either. I strongly doubt Eugenie Scott read the book herself. 2) It is still a non-sequitur. What Eugenie Scott thinks about Refuting Evolution does not belong in this supposedly neutral, fact-based section on Dr. Sarfati's work. While it is a 'fact' that Scott made that claim (I am assuming), the content of her claim is only an opinion, not a fact. --Kanbei85 (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Creationism is well established to be a pseudoscience. Removing valid criticism of a creationist text is clearly WP:PROFRINGE. And you realize that when you're reverted, you're supposed to discuss and see what the consensus is before undoing the revert, right?--tronvillain (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Pseudoscience is a pejorative term used to dismiss opposing viewpoints. Truth is not decided by consensus-- any true scientist will tell you that. Please show me the scientific findings that have 'established' creationism to be a pseudoscience... But all of that is irrelevant here. The point is that your distaste for Dr. Sarfati's views is no excuse to spread libelous content on the bio page of a living person. Scott's attack on Sarfati is out of place here in this biography. Not a single person has been able to give a solid reasonable defense as to why that statement belongs there. Have you read the book? --Kanbei85 (talk) 19:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I told him he couldn't use BLP as a 3rr exemption and that he'd have to go to WP:BLPN, which he has. Doug Weller talk 19:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As far as sources go, BioScience is rock solid. If a peer-reviewed scientific journal is comfortable with the wording "crude piece of propaganda" then it is perfectly valid to quote this in wikipedia. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ha! Well that settles it, then! No, in reality a Darwinist, evolution-promoting publication such as that will be more than happy to smear the reputation of a prominent critic of theirs like Dr. Sarfati is. You either fail to understand, or refuse to understand, the highly divisive, partisan nature of this debate.--Kanbei85 (talk) 01:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * In reality that is not the main focus of the publication at all. AIBS has far more important things to do than debate with fringe theorists, like, you know, actual science. Among credible scientists there is no "debate" or "controversy", this is an invention of those who see everything through the prism of Biblical literalism. And no, the statement "crude piece of propaganda" is not libellous, it is well within the "valid commentary" provisions of any libel laws. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That's the No True Scotsman fallacy. "Credible scientists" here just means those you agree with, i.e. those who support mainstream consensus. How easily people are made to forget how many times the mainstream consensus has been proved wrong in the past. It should not be Wikipedia's job to aid in the smear campaign against consensus-challenging scientists and suppress scientific advancement in so doing. Dr. Sarfati does not deserve the demeaning treatment he's been given here. What a travesty.--Kanbei85 (talk) 01:57, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * When did he last publish a paper in a reputable scientific journal? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Once again, the No True Scotsman fallacy. The only journals you'll consider 'reputable' are those which tow the consensus line, of course! He is a frequent contributor to and editor of the Journal of Creation, which is a peer-reviewed scientific publication. Regardless, though, he has an earned Ph.D in a scientific field and recognized work in the area of Spectroscopy, which means he deserves to be treated with respect as a scientist and not unfairly labeled a 'crude propagandist' simply because his views are politically incorrect today.--Kanbei85 (talk) 11:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * He wasn't labeled that by anyone as far as I can tell - that was their opinion of the book. And young Earth creationism is factually incorrect, not politically incorrect. --tronvillain (talk) 12:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Saying it is 'factually incorrect' is your opinion, and has to be demonstrated, not merely asserted via various bandwagon arguments and appeals to authority. Since Sarfati authored the book, and the book is being called 'crude propaganda' (incorrectly), then by extension the author of that work must be a propagandist, by definition.--Kanbei85 (talk) 12:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Nice WP:SYNTH you have there. Saying that a book is "crude propaganda" is not saying that the person who wrote it is a "crude propagandist", because making the second statement has potential implications like it still applying and it being the only or primary thing about them. Similarly, saying that a movie someone once made is bad is not the same as saying the person who directed it is a bad director. --tronvillain (talk) 13:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, technically a person could write propaganda once in a while and not be overall a 'propagandist'; however in Sarfati's case, Refuting Evolution 2 is representative of the bulk of his work as a whole. If RE2 is propaganda, then Sarfati is most certainly a propagandist, as most of Sarfati's work has been aimed at defending the traditional, pre-Darwinian view of origins. Eugenie Scott's remark was itself a piece of crude propaganda, and there is no substantiation for it whatsoever. Her prominent position is no excuse for promulgating unsubstantiated smears against people she happens to disagree with, and similarly there is no excuse for promulgating that statement here on this page.--Kanbei85 (talk) 13:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You are repeating yourself, and you are not convincing anyone because what you say does not hold water. Please actually read what people write, especially the links to the Wikipedia rules pages you are ignoring. Then read those rules pages and keep the rules. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you should take your own advice here. That was not a response to anything I wrote.--Kanbei85 (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR. This appear to be entirely your own analysis: "Refuting Evolution 2 is representative of the bulk of his work as a whole. If RE2 is propaganda, then Sarfati is most certainly a propagandist, as most of Sarfati's work has been aimed at defending the traditional, pre-Darwinian view of origins." --tronvillain (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Now we're really reaching for any excuse to criticize, aren't we? Actually, that 'analysis' may be mine, but I am not inserting that into the actual content of the article, now am I? it is also uncontroversial to anyone knowing anything about Sarfati's work.--Kanbei85 (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Request for Comment-- NPOV Dispute; Clear consensus?
According to user MaxBrowne2, "clear consensus" has been reached about the inclusion of the non-sequitur Eugenie Scott quote in Dr. Sarfati's bio. However, as best I can tell, it is a consensus of 3 or 4 people against one (myself), which is hardly a strong consensus. More importantly, though, no one has been able to give any reasonable defense as to why that quote actually belongs in Dr. Sarfati's bio! We need more than consensus here. We need a reasoned defense of including what appears completely out of place and unnecessarily disparaging towards Dr. Sarfati. This bio page is not a forum for debating creationism. Until such a time as a reasonable explanation can be given as to why that should be there, I believe it is appropriate to tag this article for POV.--Kanbei85 (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The entire section above is your explanation. If you don't think the local consensus is enough, a more appropriate action would be to start an RFC. clpo13(talk) 21:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I will be happy to do so. Until it is resolved, though, the POV tag should be left in place. By quoting Scott's disparaging remark about Sarfati's book, this bio page has been turned into a forum for debating creationism. That is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia as well as the point of a bio page. Can you give any reason why it should be there?--Kanbei85 (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Safarti has made it his job to debate evolution, so it's only natural that he'd receive pushback from organizations and people who represent the scientific consensus. It would be less neutral to omit any criticism of his views. clpo13(talk) 22:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Criticism of creationism is more than well-represented already in the various pages here on Wikipedia. It does not belong on Sarfati's bio page, since the page is about Sarfati, not about creationism. Of course it's natural Sarfati would receive pushback. That is irrelevant to his bio.--Kanbei85 (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Describing "pushback" is a natural thing to do in a biography. We do it for Einstein; we do it for Darwin. It's part of the job of portraying a life. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * No to NPOV tag, yes to Scott &mdash; the article is written neutrally. Including the scientific community's response to his writing is an appropriate course of action. It is the very opposite of a non sequitur: literally, it follows. It does not turn the biography into "a forum for debating creationism" any more than mentioning Sarfati's dispute with Ross makes the biography a "forum" for debating between the different varieties of creationism. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Sarfati's debate with Ross is rightly mentioned because it is the subject of one of Sarfati's works. I don't see what that has to do with Scott's comment.--Kanbei85 (talk) 22:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If one would turn the article into a "forum for debating", so would the other. Neither of them do, and both of them are appropriate. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Your comparison with a brief mention of Hugh Ross in connection with one of Sarfati's books is inappropriate. While the entire book Refuting Compromise is dedicated to refuting Ross, no quote from Ross is contained, nor is one needed. It is not a standard practice to always include a rebuttal quote from someone who is being criticized by any work listed in a bio page! Yet, Eugenie Scott is mentioned only in passing in Refuting Evolution 2, and is not the actual subject of the work. Why is it necessary to quote her making a defamatory remark about the book? The answer is that it is completely unnecessary. If anything is needed at all, it could be reduced to a simple statement of "members of the mainstream scientific community have rejected Sarfati's work", and link to Scott's article if desired. It's called being objective and professional.--Kanbei85 (talk) 00:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You have inadvertently made a good case for including Ross's reply to Sarfati. In addition, while you claim to be "objective and professional", you insist on labeling Scott and Branch's summary of Sarfati's book as "defamatory", which is only your subjective evaluation of it. Professionals quote, accurately and representatively. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There are ways of being non-objective simply with one's selection of what to quote and what to omit. This is a clear case of that. The quote is certainly defamatory, and non-scientific in nature. Calling Sarfati's work propaganda is not a scientific statement, but an inflammatory statement of opinion on Scott's part.--Kanbei85 (talk) 01:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I left a message for you on your talk page. Please carefully consider which path you choose to take. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * No to NPOV tag, yes to Scott — as discussed above, and the BLP noticeboard. --tronvillain (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This is supposed to be a discussion, not just a voting popularity contest. Your comment above adds nothing to it.--Kanbei85 (talk) 23:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, it does add: the discussion at the BLP noticeboard is relevant, and it had not been linked here before. I am grateful to tronvillain for posting that link, as I had been unaware of it. Besides, noting one's agreement with prior !votes is standard practice in Wikipedia discussions, not an example of a "popularity contest". XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * No to NPOV tag, yes to Scott and retain (and perhaps expand) mention that Jonathan Sarfati opposes Hugh Ross. It may be boring to most of us but to the creationists the question of whether creationist Sarfati or creationist Ross are closer to being right is important. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No to NPOV tag, yes to Scott and noting we have an editor who as he clearly couldn't get editors to agree here, he went, at my suggestin, to BLPN. He didn't get any further there so now he's asked for an RfC. Doug Weller  talk 11:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No to NPOV tag, yes to Scott Starting an RfC over a tag and stating the obvious is a new low. Johnuniq (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Move to SNOW close Consensus is clear, editor has been blocked indefinitely, essentially for wasting the community's time. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I second the move to Snow Close. There is zero chance that Wikipedia will ever treat pseudoscientists who believe that everything was created in 7 literal days 10,000 years ago the same way we treat the actual scientists -- astronomers, physicists, geologists, paleontologists, etc. -- who have solid evidence that the earth is much, much older. This sort of thing just makes those creationists -- FSM bless them -- who calmly advocate for their position without being total asshats about it look bad. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:07, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

NOTE I've closed this as opinion seemed to be that this RfC was a waste of time. If anyone feels I have done the wrong thing, please contact me. Pincrete (talk) 19:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)