Talk:Jack Sarfatti/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Archives

Looks like this controversy has settled, so I archived the lot. Cheers ---CH 03:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's be more accurate...

The leading paragraph states: "He is known for his iconoclastic ideas, and ..." Well... He is known.. to who? In the U.S.? We cannot simply say "He is known", or even nothing at all (since the intent of the phrase is probably not asserting his notability to humanity, but to introduce his ideas). --euyyn 02:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I read in the deletion discussion that he's known in some usenet groups. Any other notability, or I just include it? --euyyn 03:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation offer

A great number of edits to this article are being reverted. I am interested in attempting to penetrate the sometimes opaque assertions that are being inserted into the article (and steadfastly removed), so if the party (or parties) who are interested in having changes made to the article would be interested in my assistance I offer myself to this service, of course provided a satisfactory dialogue can be achieved. __meco 13:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

unsourced claims

There are many unsourced claims and quotes purporting to be from Jack Sarfatti here. Until sources are brought, I'm removing them. As per Jimbo Wales' edict regarding living persons, don't just slap a "citation needed" tag on unsourced info, remove that info entirely. wikipediatrix 14:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

undue weight

I'm also removing this paragraph: "A graduate seminar taught by University of Campinas, Brazil mathematics professor Waldyr Rodrigues, which looked for mathematical errors and inconsistencies in physics papers published in scientific journals or posted on the arXiv online physics preprint archive, recently focused on some of Sarfatti's concepts and methods. In his paper "A Comment on Emergent Gravity," posted on arXiv, Rodrigues cited alleged mathematical inconsistencies in the first version of Sarfatti's recent paper "Emergent Gravity: String Theory Without String Theory," [13] calling it a "potpourri of nonsense Mathematics," and said that later revisions of the paper also contained errors." While the information seems to be correct and factual, one has to wonder why it is notable enough to be here. An obscure seminar taught by an obscure Brasilian professor is not important enough to be a blemish on the permanent record of a worldwide-famous Nobel-prize-winning physicist from Cornell. Its placement here is giving Rodrigues undue weight. It's like putting a criticism section on, say, Sean Penn's article and citing references to a small-time community-theater actor who states that Penn is a poor actor. Not all criticism is encyclopedic. wikipediatrix 15:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


That's a joke, right? First, Sarfatti is not a "worldwide-famous Nobel-prize-winning physicist from Cornell". Second Brazil and Brazilian theoretical physics is not non-notable and obscure by definition. --Michael C. Price talk 22:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
How is Sarfatti not a "worldwide-famous Nobel-prize-winning physicist from Cornell"? And I didn't say anything about the notability of "Brazilian theoretical physics", so why are you? wikipediatrix 13:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Since when is Sarfatti a Nobel prize winner? (Also, only his BA is from Cornell, so it seems odd to say that he is a physicist from Cornell. His association ended back in 1960, as far as I can see.) Phiwum 14:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Sarfatti is not a Nobel prize physicist and has never claimed to be. He graduated Cornell 1960, but he was also there in 1964 as can be verified from the records of the Cornell Savoyards online. He played Colonel Fairfax in the Cornell production of Yeoman of the Guard. Excerpts from that actual performance can be found on the open directories http://qedcorp.com/destiny, http://qedcorp.com/London/ http://qedcorp.com/APS Also as a matter of fact Sarfatti was a visiting professor at UNICAMP invited by the very same Professor Waldyr Rodrigues Jr back in 1984, a document proving that is I think in the above APS directory 71.202.45.33 (talk) 06:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)Flash

The above comment appears to have been an anonymous edit by Sarfatti himself after he was permanently banned in 2005. See User talk:71.202.45.33. Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Section disappeared without a trace

Following my mediation offer in the section #Mediation offer, a section has disappeared which included a contribution from me. A possible explanation could be that it was removed when the talk page was temporarily moved to Talk:Jack Sarfatti/test by User:Jayjg. I am not technically competent to exclude other possibilites of this anomaly. User:Jayjg is an administrator appointed to the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee, thus one in high standing, and I trust whatever was done to the article was done with good intentions. However, what took place ought perhaps to have been commented on spontaneously instead of having to be subjected to this inquiry. __meco 20:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

As an admin, I can review the deleted edits. It appears that Jayjg deleted several revisions of the talk page because an anonymous editor was attempting to 'out' another editor by revealing (purportedly) that editor's real name. Your comments were probably caught up inadvertently; Jayjg might also have deleted them as they responded to comments that were removed from the page history. Did you try asking Jayjg why he deleted the section? I've found that polite requests for clarification can clear up most misunderstandings, and such requests are usually a much more efficient way to resolve matters than blind speculation on an article talk page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Simply because the topic of Jack Sarfatti has been riddled with smearing, accusations of censorship and casting of suspicions, I figured the only appropriate way to deal with this issue was to do it very bluntly, out in the open, here, to prevent any propagation of this local focal point of conspiracy theorizing. That is why, also, I comment as I did that whatever took place perhaps ought to have been commented on here, so that not only users exceeding a certain threshold of computer know-how would be able to understand what was going on. (I believe I read a comment about Sarfatti not having internet savvy in another discussion among administrators which in my view only strengthens the basis for this line of reasoning)
As a point in case I just read a comment made on the talk page of the Norwegian Wikipedia article about conspiracy theories relating to 9/11 which accused Wikipedia's editors of 1984 style, insidious ways of removing traces of dissident user edits by manipulating the databases so that the openness Wikipedia prides itself with becomes a mere illusion as the page history ceases to be a reliable instrument of learning about the actual changes made to a page. __meco 12:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Put those conspiracy theories back in the box, fellow, 'cause no one's buying it. Jack Sarfatti is a vexatious litigant, a permabanned pest whose ego will allow no contradiction, who floods anyone who disagrees with him with e-mailed rants and conspiracy theories of his own (ask Jimbo Wales). Sarfatti had his chance, and if he wants to contribute here, it'll be on Wikipedia's terms, following Wikipedia's rules. His posts were deleted under Wikipedia policy: if you don't want to believe it -- despite the fact that I'm certain you saw them before they were deleted -- take it up with the admin who actually did so (once again, it was User:Jayjg) instead of assuming bad faith as your starting point. --Calton | Talk 12:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I see from your contribution history, Meco, that you started editing the English Wikipedia (and this page) after Jack Sarfatti was permanently banned from editing here. Consequently, I can see why you might not be familiar with the history of Jack Sarfatti on Wikipedia, or understand why he was barred from further contributions. Frankly, the 'smearing, accusations of censorship and casting of suspicions' have almost without fail come from Sarfatti. I would strongly encourage you to review User:JackSarfatti's contribution history and the log of his blocks to see why he is no longer welcome here.
'Lacking internet savvy' is a not-infrequent challenge for some new Wikipedia editors, and we are more than willing to assist and educate individuals hampered by their unfamiliarity with Wikipedia practice or netiquette. A number of editors – including Ed Poor, who went to the heroic length of having several discussions with Sarfatti by telephone – have attempted to advise Sarfatti on appropriate standards of behaviour on Wikipedia. To put it most directly, Sarfatti utterly failed to heed that advice. He continued to engage in behaviour inappropriate for Wikipedia or anywhere else on- or off-line. After many second chances, he was finally banned indefinitely from Wikipedia in December of 2005. (The particular straw that broke the camel's back was his threat to report Willmcw to the FBI and have him prosecuted under the PATRIOT Act for adding Sarfatti's date of birth to Sarfatti's biography.)
On a technical note, deletion of page revisions (what Jayjg did here) is employed relatively rarely. Deletion of a revision takes place when an editor maliciously puts at risk the privacy or safety of another individual, and it is not done lightly. In most cases it is possible for Wikipedia administrators to view the deleted revision(s) – as I did above – which on the English Wikipedia means that there are about a thousand community-selected individuals who can review the use of the revision deletion tools. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
As I stated in my offer above to "mediate" this "mediation" is limited to assistance in having information added to the article if I and any party taking me up on this offer can agree on how this should be done. Although I have previously (I translated the article to Norwegian some time ago) made some attempt at updating myself on the history of the controveries leading up to Sarfatti's banishment from the English language Wikipedia, this is not something I am currently interested in pursuing. __meco 07:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

If Sarfatti really was involved in undercover work then I could understand his anger. On the other hand are you sure he was not simply being funny in a satirical way? If you listen to him on the R.U. Sirius Podcast he seems to have a very New York City sense of humor. SamuelJohnson714 01:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Many of the allegations about Sarfatti above are unsubstantiated, taken way out of context, and display inappropriate display of anger, hostility and rage against Sarfatti, hardly an objective scholarly quest for the truth. Indeed, they are a violation of decorum inconsistent with the ideals of the Wikipedia culture. Fact of the matter was that Sarfatti was vilified and ridiculed in early versions of the page on him and, like many other living persons of note, was upset with precisely the kind of hostility expressed above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.45.33 (talk) 06:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The above comment appears to have been an anonymous edit by Sarfatti himself after he was permanently banned in 2005. See User talk:71.202.45.33. Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Sarfatti and National Security

Sharon Weinberger has written about Sarfatti's involvement with the US Intelligence Community. His association with Dr. Ron Pandolfi. Dr. Kit Green, Paul Murad and others is well known and his attendance as a "senior advisor" at the JASON meeting at General Atomics in La Jolla in June 2008 is mentioned on the internet in several blogs. 71.202.45.33 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC). See also the Wiki page on the CIvil Air Patrol which mentions Sarfatti as a notable former cadet showing his early recruitment into the US IC at the age of 14. There are also online photographs of Sarfatti on the US Aircraft carrier CV61 on station in the Indian Ocean in 1987. 71.202.45.33 (talk) 08:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The above comment appears to have been an anonymous edit by Sarfatti himself after he was permanently banned in 2005. See User talk:71.202.45.33. Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

New Videos of Jack Sarfatti talking about physics

fyi http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=lensman137&view=videos David Kaiser, physics professor at MIT is writing a book in which Sarfatti's physics ideas and life story are prominently discussed. Kaiser should be consulted as an objective source. 71.202.45.33 (talk) 17:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The above comment appears to have been an anonymous edit by Sarfatti himself after he was permanently banned in 2005. See User talk:71.202.45.33. Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

enough about Sarfatti himself, already.

Not sure why so much conversation here is devoted to Sarfatti himself, and the drama related to his interactions with Wikipedia. It doesn't matter what Sarfatti has said and has done as a Wikipedia editor. It doesn't matter that he's banned. This is supposed to be about editing the article. The article in its current state looks perfectly fine to me. wikipediatrix 13:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed.PaulLev 20:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The article looks fine to you because you are not a professional physicist. In fact, if the article is supposed to objectively describe what Sarfatti's ideas about physics are, it falls short to achieve the objective. 71.202.45.33 (talk) 08:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Well then, edit it and make it better- you have the ability to do so instead of us non-professional physicists. Monsieurdl mon talk 13:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
The above comment appears to have been an anonymous edit by Sarfatti himself after he was permanently banned in 2005; therefore editing the article himself would be in violation of policy. See User talk:71.202.45.33. Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

This guy has a userpage

yeah and he's been blocked why is all that? has he made controversial edits here? --– Emperor Walter Humala · ( talk? · help! ) 23:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you could say that some of his edits were controversial. He was ultimately blocked for repeated, thorough violation of a number of Wikipedia policies. He made legal threats, personal attacks, and harrassed another editor by trying to post that editor's name and physical address on this page. He also demanded that we not include his birthdate in the article for 'national security' reasons. If you look further up this talk page, there's a more extensive explanation of why he is no longer welcome to edit here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

In fact Sarfatti has made many uncontroversial technical edits in purely physics related articles that have gone undetected by the people, some of whom are above, who are keen to vilify him. There is no way to prevent anyone from contributing to Wiki under different names and that is a good thing. Basically Sarfatti was sucker-punched by some of you and had no idea at the time of what was happening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.45.33 (talk) 07:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The above comment appears to have been an anonymous edit by Sarfatti himself after he was permanently banned in 2005, gloating over the ineffectiveness of the ban. See User talk:71.202.45.33. The user page in question is User:JackSarfatti. Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Relevant(?) text removed

In this edit the following text was removed:

The edit comment being "remove promo material" I somehow come to disagree with the decision to remove. I think this is valid material for inclusion and that the external links and video reference should simply be made into references. __meco 06:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Repeated accusations of bias against one editor

One particular editor has been singled out by Sarfatti, sockpuppets of Sarfatti, supporters of Sarfatti or all of the above, as particularly unfair and biased in his watch over the article. I think the repeated accusations are not the most constructive or fruitful way of going about this. Instead of throwing invectives and dealing out personal characterizations, which are sure to be deleted almost immediately, I would like to see some of the accusors taking the trouble of presenting a succinct description of each case of asserted censorship. As an example of how this could be done I would give my summary of edit history at Talk:Solomon Spalding. __meco 08:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but it's pot calling kettle black. If only those in power here would practice what they preach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.45.33 (talk) 07:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The above comment appears to have been an anonymous edit by Sarfatti himself after he was permanently banned in 2005. See User talk:71.202.45.33. Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


This article is seriously inaccurate and way out of date

Simple facts easily checked with Google 1. Jack Sarfatti has not used usenet forums for years. His main forum is now Facebook for short communications and Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars at Yahoo Groups and Youtube Lensman137 Channel for videos. He also has a mobile me video gallery. The Stardrive site is dormant not updated for years.

2. The information about Sarfatti and Uri Geller stops at 1975. Sarfatti and Geller appear in a recent film http://stayaerusa.org

3. Sarfatti's recent peer-reviewed IOP paper with well-known NASA Ames scientist Creon Levit presents a theory of emergent gravity based upon cosmological inflation in accord with the hologram conjecture of t'Hooft and Susskind. Sarfatti suggests that the hologram is our future event horizon based on the award-winning 2004 PhD dissertation of Tamara Davis (University of New South Wales). Sarfatti and Levit allege to get the four gravity tetrad 1-form fields and the six gravity spin-connection 1-form fields from eight coherent Goldstone phases that are also the basis for the eight gluon vacuum condensates of the strong force of Quantum Chromodynamics - i.e. a unification of gravity with the strong force. This is consistent with Frank Wilczek's "multilayered multi-colored vacuum superconductor" in his book "Lightness of Being." Just focussing on Sarfatti's eccentric views on UFOs and the paranormal is negative spin inconsistent with Wiki's policy on biographies of living people that should strive to be fair, objective and balanced.

The more experienced editors should it appears either delete the article or bring it up to date. Giodorno (talk) 10:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Uri Geller

Sarfatti's views on Geller are totally non relevant and unimportant. I removed the section. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that was an appropriate removal. __meco (talk) 21:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, finally the page about me is free of slander and gross misrepresentation. I hope it stays that way and that Calton Bolick and others do not do more mischief in violation of Wiki rules. Jack Sarfatti Jan 14, 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.144.82 (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The above comment appears to have been an non-anonymous edit by Sarfatti himself after he was permanently banned in 2005. See User talk:71.202.45.33. Kragen Javier Sitaker is A Big Fag(talk) 16:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.9 (talk)

Removed publications section

I did a search for on Google Scholar for Jack Sarfatti to check the prominence of his publications. None of the publications seem to have more than 12 citations. This suggests the publications are not prominent enough to be listed on Sarfatti's wikipedia article. --DFRussia (talk) 22:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

What do our guidelines say specifically on when and how a scientist's papers should appropriately be included in the article? __meco (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Protest by Jack Sarfatti - DF Russia has libelously removed my publications list citing some "12 citation rule". This is outrageous libel. Is this rule applied equally to all people on Wikipedia or only to me and others on the "blacklist"? Indeed this 1984 Orwellian selective deleting of relevant history is not only libelous, but is a violation of my civil rights under US Law and the United Nations Charter. How dare an anonymous cipher like "DF Russia" be permitted to "spin" my reputation to fit his hidden political agenda? How dare he not let the public judge the value of my publications? Perhaps I am not the only dissident intellectual victim of this Soviet-style repression? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.144.82 (talk • contribs) 17:05, June 21, 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I got a personal attack on my talk page... I do not approve. The current list of publication looks like all of Jack Sarfatti's publications. This is never appropriate. As far as I understand, the policy on wikipedia is to not put something unless we have evidence of something being notable. Is there any evidence that ALL (or any) of Jack Sarfatti's publications are notable? Also, is there anyone I can report the abuse of my talk page to? Thanks --DFRussia (talk) 01:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
If they're published in peer-reviewed journals then they're notable, and other bio's generally would not have a problem with such a list. --Michael C. Price talk 18:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't know about that — I don't think we generally include the complete works of scientists, and I suspect that you would find significant disagreement with the notion that any paper published in a peer-reviewed journal is automatically notable. (Their existence is certainly verifiable, but that's another kettle of fish.) In general, I would suggest that only key, seminal works should be included – a selected bibliography – rather than a laundry list of everything. (Where to draw the cutoff is certainly a matter for discusison.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Take for instance a well respected active scientist... such as (picking almost at random) Robert Axelrod if you go to his CV ([1]) you can see that he has a lot of publications, yet if you go to his Wikipedia article, there are listed only 5. Now, someone not familiar with the fields Axelrod works in might ask: "how can we know that the publications are notable?" Well lets see how many citations they have... if you go to google scholar and search for the publication, you see that they all have over 1 thousand citations, with one of them having 17.5k. A good proxy for notability. When I did a search earlier for the publications listed on this article (or for Jack Sarfatti) there was nothing with more than 12 citations... how is that notable? For some reason JS (or - more likely - a troll parading as JS) thinks that I am using some sort of "you need more than 12 citations to be notable" rule, but I am not. You need to show that something is notable before it is put on Wikipedia... the number of citations is just one of the easiest ways to check the notability of a scientific publication. Jack Sarfatti already has an article which is far longer than his notability (what is his notability?) merits. Let us not turn this article into his effective homepage by listing his whole CV. --DFRussia (talk) 05:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Notability

I did a search for Jack Sarfatti and looked through the old deletion discussion/vote thread. It seems that Jack Sarfatti is notable for being a crank. Apparently the article was not outright deleted back in 2005 because a user named CH rewrote it in NPOV listing both JS's ideas and the reaction of the physics community (which is negative/dismissive). As wikipedia editors we are not suppose to assess JS's ideas ourselves (I for instance have training in physics, and after reading parts of JS's website can see that he is a crank) but are suppose to report what the academic community (in this case) thinks. A search on www.crank.net brings up many references to JS, also the lack of citations and journals he is published in suggest that JS is notably for his cranky contributions to usenet groups. Why is this not mentioned in this article? I will add the changes, please discuss them here before removal. --DFRussia (talk) 06:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding "... cranky contributions to usenet groups. Why is this not mentioned in this article...", I think the reason might be that no former or current Usenet physics contributor really cares. I estimate that 99.9% of them has JS in their killfile. I don't think I have seen anyone reply technically to JS's Usenet messages. Is that notable? I don't know, nor care. DVdm (talk) 07:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
So, you're saying that Jack's contributions to physics stand unrefuted. This fact surely makes him notable!
Just kidding.
To DFRussia: I tend to agree that one of Jack's primary claims to notability is his crankish posts on Usenet, but I doubt you can verify this with a WP:RS. Phiwum (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Phiwum and DVdm. If we cannot verify/mention that JS is a crackpot (is www.crank.net considered a reliable source or not?) then what is his claim to fame? Why does he have a Wikipedia page? Outside of being a well-know crank how does he pass for notability? I looked up the notability guidelines for academics, and going through the 9 possible points:

  1. JS's research has not made any impact on the scholarly discipline, except for maybe giving some folks laughs at usenet groups. This is mostly based on the fact that he has few publications, none of them in notable journals, and all with very few citations. This means the academic discipline does not consider what he contributed to be significant at this time. There are a few popular media references to him from some online news articles/interviews. But once again, there are no significant positive articles about him in mainstream print media. Further, it is really questionable if a few non-peer reviewed online interviews is really any indication of someone's standing in the scholarly discipline.
  2. JS has not won any highly prestigious prizes.
  3. JS has not been elected a member of any highly prestigious organization.
  4. Note point 1. JS's research has not made any impact on academia... and definitely not on how academic institutions function.
  5. As far as I can tell JS is not currently employed by any academic institution and if he has been employed in the past it was not even at the level of tenured professor never mind a distinguished or named professorship.
  6. JS has not held a high post in any major academic society.
  7. JS has not made a significant impact outside the academic community in his academic capacity. He has been mentioned in a few obscure-ish online interviews, but that seems to be about it.
  8. JS has not been the editor-in-chief of any well-established journal. In fact, half of his publications seem to come from novelty publication houses.
  9. As far as I understand JS claims to be a physicists or a scientist, not a musician or writer/poet.

Hence, it seems clear to me that JS does not meet the requirements of notability under the academics field. He might meet notability under a different set of guide lines, can anybody cite under which guidelines he meets notability? Further, if JS does meet notability under some guideline, we should structure the article as it is for people from those areas. Currently the article is structured like that of a notable academic, which JS is not. Comments? --DFRussia (talk) 19:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Based on these criteria it looks like you are right - lack of notability.

As excellent a website www.crank.net may be, whether it could qualify as a WP:RS I don't know. Google Books finds it in 5 books. DVdm (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Google scholar has 16 results, so I definitely agree that crank.net will have a hard time qualifying. Is there any reliable source on cranky-ness? --DFRussia (talk) 00:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I did a major review of the article, removing everything that was not notable or not clearly sourced. I am having questions about JS's biography. His whole biography (including references to all the famous people he worked with in the late 60s/early 70s seems to rely on one source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1997/08/17/SC46892.DTL

Is this considered a reliable source for a person's biography? One interview article that readers can nominate interviewees for?

A careful search for Sarfatti's early publications on Google scholar always come up with a J. Sarfatt not a J. Sarfatti. Is it possible that the info is bogus? Do we have any other reliable sources for Sarfatti's exceptional biography? --DFRussia (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

That sfgate article is a primary source, so I think we need a secondary source for the information drawn from it.
The article looks a bit shorter now, so I have removed the Lead-Too-Long tag. I also think that the external links list should be trimmed down to a few, per points 3 and 4 of wp:ELPOINTS. As it is now there's more links than text. I'll leave it to you tp pick what should be kept. And of course I think that the article can be deleted per wp:NOTABLE, as there are thousands of non-notable Usenet posters with a posting count over 8000. Not much left now. DVdm (talk) 07:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I put the notability tag on the article, since it seems to clearly not meet notability guidelines. The article relies on two or three media references and (previously) on primary sources from Sarfatti which are not to be considered for notability under bio. As I outlined above, Sarfatti clearly does not meet notability under WP:PROF, if he meets notability under a different guideline please state this here before removing the tag. Otherwise, I will nominate this article for immediate deletion.

I also removed what I think is a nice reference of Sarfatti's crankish-ness so I will include the link here so that is easy to find if this article is kept: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0602111 --DFRussia (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Message from Jack Sarfatti

This text was posted in the article in these edits and subsequently moved here:

This is Jack Sarfatti and I protest this libelous vandalization and malicious blatant falsification of my bio by the anonymous hack who calls itself "DF Russia". It is factually wrong since I have not posted on usenet for years now. Also note that Martin Gardner wrote about me in 1976 MIT Technology Review long before there was an Internet and that Professor David Kaiser of MIT Physics Department is writing a book in which I am prominently figured as important to the history of modern physics. Furthermore, I predicted supersolid helium in 1969 in Physics Letters A (peer reviewed) months before Tony Leggett published on the subject, also my 1966 paper with Marshall Stoneham retired head of physics at Harwell United Kingdom Atomic Energy Research Establishment on the Goldstone Theorem and the Jahn Teller effect was published in peer-reviewed Proceedings of the Physical Society of London and was mentioned as a notable paper in American Institute of Physics "Resource Letter on Symmetry in Physics" 1980. DF Russia is committing a criminal libel in my opinion and I want this noted for the historical record. He is one of several people who have wormed their way into Wikipedia with the intent of libel of me and others involved in paranormal and UFO investigations in addition to my mainstream theoretical physics research in Einstein's general relativity, cosmology of dark energy and dark matter and the foundations of quantum theory - extending it to include signal nonlocality and retro-causality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.144.82 (talk) 19:57, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

More from Sarfatti

July 15, 2010 I would prefer all you Orwellian creeps simply remove me completely as a not-notable non-person from your Cyber Space Gulag. - Jack Sarfatti

Most of you are like the party hacks in Soviet Russia. Your petty rules disgust me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.144.82 (talk) 03:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Sarfatti, let me 'splain it to you. A lot of Wikipedia editors and admins are enormous douchebags. It's really that simple. Stop kicking against the pricks. Eat a peach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.9 (talk) 09:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Bohm, Salam

Why has the association with David Bohm (sourced) and Abdus Salam been removed? --Michael C. Price talk 16:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you able to trace the edits where these removals were made? If so, what, if anything, did the edit summaries say about it? __meco (talk) 16:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I was hoping that the remover would remember. I looked back a couple of years and saw that Bohm was sourced. Didn't find Salam, but I recall his mention as a thesis advisor or something like that. --Michael C. Price talk 17:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Repeated removal of list of peer-reviews publications

Why has the detailed list of Sarfatti's physics peer reviewed publications (e.g. Proceedings of the London Physical Society, Physics Letters etc) prepared by top NASA AMES Scientist Creon Levit been repeatedly removed? What is the rational for that pray tell? How is the present page fair and balanced when it falsely makes it appear that Sarfatti stopped publishing in 1963? Also why was MIT Physics Professor David Kaiser's PBS WGBH Boston TV lecture on Sarfatti's and his friends "saving physics" repeatedly deleted? Is the MIT Physics Department now considered some kind of suspect flake organization because they have a good thing to say about Sarfatti? Why is Sarfatti accused of "vandalism" and "disruptive editing" when he tries to correct blatant distortions of his career? How silly is the rule that living people are not allowed by the Wiki Authority to protest and correct falsehoods, libels and sins of omission about their lives that they know best. This is a wide-spread problem not just limited to Jack Sarfatti. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.144.160.217 (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide the link to some of the edits you refer to? __meco (talk) 09:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Don't bother: Jack Sarfatti has been banned from Wikipedia and blocked by Jimbo Wales himself. If Jack has a problem, he can bug OTRS. --Calton | Talk 12:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and whatever you do, DON'T send him e-mail, as he will use your return address to flood you with crank e-mail and e-mail listservs. Just ask Jimbo Wales. --Calton | Talk 12:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Calton, I asked Jimbo Wales, and he said that you should stop throwing his name around like you were more than a short-term thing, and further, you are to move out of the mansion forthwith. Best regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.9 (talk) 09:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Not critical of Uri Geller

From earlier bouts on this article I know that Sarfatti has reversed himself with regards to the earlier, and well-sourced, criticism of Uri Geller. For the sake both of accuracy and BLP we really should make an effort to either restore or come up with the requisite references to add this to the present text about his criticism of Geller. I'm writing restore because I'm unsure whether we have had such sources in the past. __meco (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed that as well. I wouldn't characterize Sarfatti as a "critic" of Geller. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
There are two articles that I've found thus far where he is criticising Geller and compared to people like James Randi. Would more sources to that end help or is there something else needed? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Sarfatti was initially impressed by Geller, and commented: “My personal professional judgement as a Ph.D. physicist is that Geller demonstrated genuine psychoenergetic ability at Birkbeck, which is beyond the doubt of any reasonable man, under relatively well-controlled and repeatable experimental conditions." He later revised this opinion after discussing the matter with James Randi. He wrote in a letter: “On the basis of further experience in the art of conjuring, I wish to retract my endorsement of Uri Geller’s psychoenergetic authenticity." Science News, December 6, 1975, p. 355.

I think this may help explain it. If Scarfatti has recently recanted his 2nd opinion, I wasn't aware of it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I believe that is the case. In any case I know that that is Sarfatti's current position. How public he has made the recanting I'm unsure of. I have him on my Facebook friends list, so I may get some backchannel information on this that could meet our requirements. __meco (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Of course you are sure of "[h]ow public he has made the recanting" since it says just above the area where you were typing that he did it in a letter published in Science News, December 6, 1975, p. 355. You know exactly how public he made it. Why must you be so difficult? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.9 (talk) 09:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

PHD from Cornell?

The San Francisco Chronicle article used as a reference for the sentence "Sarfatti holds a PHD in physics from Cornell" doesn't contain any such statement. The SFGate article does make it clear that Sarfatti's PHD was from UC, I'll make that correction. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

NOTE

The subject of this article has been banned from Wikipedia. If he has any issues with the article, he should be referred to the WMF. --Calton | Talk 12:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jack_Sarfatti/Archive_5&oldid=864590888"