Talk:Jack Sarfatti/Archive 7

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

Lead

I changed the lead to read: "Jack Sarfatti (born September 14, 1939) is an American theoretical physicist who believes there is a relationship between quantum physics and consciousness. Working largely outside academia, he argues that mind may be crucial to the structure of matter, that retrocausality may be possible, and that physics—which he calls the "Conceptual Art of the late 20th Century"—has replaced philosophy as the unifying force between science and art." I think my change was fair considering that Quantum conciousness has no acceptance within the scientific community, and it's his beliefs. Slim changed "who believes" to "specializing in the idea that", which makes it look like it is a valid standard specialization contrary to WP:FRINGE, and seems awkward at best. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The lead had been stable for a long time, and opened: "Jack Sarfatti (born September 14, 1939) is an American theoretical physicist specializing in the relationship between quantum physics and consciousness." You changed that a few days ago to Sarfatti is "an American theoretical physicist who believes there is a relationship ..." [1] which sounded odd. I therefore changed it to "who specializes in the idea that there is a relationship."
The point of the first sentence is to tell us who he is, or what he does. Starting with his beliefs alone makes it sound as thought WP is distancing itself too much, rather than being disinterested. Because this is a BLP, it's important to get the tone right. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree with IRWolfie. "Specializing in the idea that..." is needlessly awkward. Perhaps "believes" isn't quite right, but we need to say that he's working to establish or research this thesis. As it is, it appears that he's helping to develop a well-represented topic. Phiwum (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
The tone is wrong because you are giving quantum conciousness extra validity. An alternative is "is an American theoretical physicist who advocates for a relationship between quantum physics and consciousness". I'm not here to dismiss Sarfatti or something; I simply don't want to see quantum conciousness being given more validity than it's due by weight of sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
The tone of IRWoflie's edit is wrong because he is unnecessarily introducing ideology into the first sentence of a BLP. SlimVirgin's version avoids that. — goethean 12:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Elaborate on "ideology" and what you are talking about, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
There is no speciality of "quantum physics and consciousness" within theoretical physics. Using the word "specializing" legitimizes a fringe position. --92.2.66.203 (talk) 22:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed the tone is wrong because it is based on complete ignorance of the facts. Niels Bohr, Erwin Schrodinger, Fritz London, John Von Neumann, David Bohm, Eugene Wigner, Henry Stapp, Brian Josephson and Sir Roger Penrose and many other top physicists have speculated on the relationship of consciousness to quantum theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:101:8E38:F48E:E712:4583:9FDA (talk) 06:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The difficulty is that Sarfatti is someone with perfectly solid credentials and history in theoretical physics, but who is best known for ideas that have little or no mainstream acceptance. (Although this may seem surprising, it's really not so uncommon.) The goal here should be to describe both of these aspects without letting either one color the other too much; that is, we don't want to diminish his credentials or generally recognized work because of his non-mainstream ideas, or conversely, to use his recognized work as an argument-from-authority for his non-mainstream ideas. I think any construction that tries to link together "theoretical physicist" and "relationship between quantum physics and consciousness" will tend to be problematic for this reason, and it's perhaps cleaner to just split them into separate sentences. --Amble (talk) 00:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense. We could split the sentence so it would read:

Jack Sarfatti (born September 14, 1939) is an American theoretical physicist. Working largely outside academia, Sarfatti specializes in the idea that there is a relationship between quantum physics and consciousness. He argues that mind may be crucial to the structure of matter, that retrocausality may be possible, and that physics—which he calls the "Conceptual Art of the late 20th Century"—has replaced philosophy as the unifying force between science and art.

SlimVirgin (talk) 02:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
That sounds great to me (for what my two cents are worth). :-) Thanks. --Amble (talk) 02:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for suggesting it. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Isn't "specializes in the idea that there is a relationship" a bit wp:weasely? Shouldn't that be "claims that there is a relationship"? - DVdm (talk) 10:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
"Claims" would be the weasel option (see WP:W2W). Whether quantum physics can explain or provide a vocabulary for the problems of consciousness (qualia, time, mental-to-physical causation, the appearance of free will) is a valid subject, even if not discussed in physics classes. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that "claims" would be weasel here. I think it could even be sourced ;-)

But never mind, this is not really worth wasting thought —let alone mind— on. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

It's a valid subject according to you, but not according to the scientific mainstream. That needs to be clear in the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Kaiser overuse

All of these articles on Fsyick group members are being dominated by David Kaiser, using his source to a really large extent. Seriously, what is with the over reliance of the book by this historian to prop up all of these articles? Also note that reviews of the book indicate that he may have overreached in his claims for the influence of the group, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

This was a troubled BLP for a long time, triggering several complaints, including I believe to the Foundation. It was rewritten using David Kaiser's work as a source, and has been quiet ever since, so I hope nothing will be done to stir it up again. Kaiser's book and talks are good sources, in fact ideal sources for this subject. He has a PhD in physics and another in the history of science, both from Harvard. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
That doesn't address my comment. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what else I could say to address it. David Kaiser, the Germeshausen Professor of the History of Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, himself a physicist, has written fairly extensively about Sarfatti in a recent book, and has discussed him in lectures. Therefore, we use that material extensively as a source, because it's a great source. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
But we don't need to base so much of the articles from the book if we know its shortcomings (I wouldn't expect any persons original research to be universally accepted either, so it seems like bad practice to base on article on it). I'm not saying it's not a fine book for opinion, just that it is being overused when we have specific reviews that counter some of the points. The book appears to be a pop-history book, aimed for public consumption, and not by a university press, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

David Kaiser is a Ph.D. physicist with a degree from Harvard and he is on the physics faculty of MIT head of the Science and Technology group. Kaiser is a professional historian of physics. The book has been reviewed in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Nature, Scientific American, American Scientist, Physics Today. Sarfatti's photograph is in the first three. Sarfatti is a public figure influencing national security policy and well as mass-culture quite apart from his work in physics and to restrict references to university presses is improper. Kaiser's book is impeccably professional of the highest standards expected by an MIT faculty member. It is written both for the public and for physicists and received an award from the British Institute of Physics in 2012. Finally, Sarfatti is a strident critic of "free energy conspiracy theorists" yet the article at the bottom libels him by falsely insinuating that he is a member of that crackpot group. He is not. Please correct that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:6380:B7:2CDA:5A40:775B:25E6 (talk) 17:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

So What Has He Done?

This section is in violation of Wik rules, specifically: This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:101:8E38:A139:5F13:7EC7:49B2 (talk) 18:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Found the main page very odd, it reads like home made Sarfatti "Fluff". Taken from some idealistic memory of the past, but it never happened that way.

How would you know? Were you there? Or are you accusing MIT Physics Historian David Kaiser of incompetence?

I know he has a massive ego, self-promoter, very self-opinionated and does not like critics…

Do you know anyone who does?

but what has this to do with anything in the requirements of a Wiki page?

Tell me "Fundamental Fysiks Group" was something positive rather than a group of drug nuts with crackpot ideas that never came to anything just talk

That is libel. You have accused Henry Stapp, John Clauser and many others as drug nuts.

The idea that he influencing national security policy and well as mass-culture is wrong on all counts.

How do you know? In fact you don't. The CIA connection is in David Kaiser's book. There is an article in the San Francisco Chronicle Sunday Magazine 1986 "The Buttoned Down Bohemians" that describes Sarfatti's involvement in Star Wars with the top Reagan think tank Institute for Contemporary Studies set up by Cap Weinberger, Ed Meese for Reagan while he was still Governor. Sarfatti's book Destiny Matrix has photocopies of letters of support from Cap Weinberger on office of Secretary of Defense stationary thanking him for his contribution. There is also a letter from Bootsie Galbraith wife of Reagan's Ambassador to France and most important there is a multi-page document from Harold Chipman who was a very important CIA Chief of Station in Germany during the peak of the cold war.

Check this one out http://www.philipcoppens.com/starconundrum_react.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:101:8E38:3CF3:EF91:FE58:6B91 (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Libel .. a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation. synonyms: defamation, defamation of character, character assassination, calumny, misrepresentation, scandal-mongering;

In fact David Kaiser's book shows their efforts were seminal in the current quantum information revolution in physics. Do any of you have real credentials in physics?

Defamation—also calumny, vilification, and traducement—is the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of an individual person, business, product, group, government, religion, or nation as well as other various kinds of defamation that retaliate against groundless criticism.

Under common law, to constitute defamation, a claim must generally be false and have been made to someone other than the person defamed.[1] Some common law jurisdictions also distinguish between spoken defamation, called slander, and defamation in other media such as printed words or images, called libel.[2]

False light laws protect against statements which are not technically false but misleading.[3]

And, why do we have a very large subsection on Uri Geller?

Sarfatti from looking at the references is a flake and from all accounts also an arrogant old man.

Reality check: Do these videos show a flake and an arrogant old man?

https://vimeo.com/127518083 the end of this video has Sarfatti in discussion with the Vicar of Kensington of the High Church of England whose parish includes Kensington Palace and who is a close advisor to David Cameron, Prime Minister of UK.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meU8cXfoScs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvOwHb6h-I0 here Sarfatti is the personal guest of the Mayor of Catania, Sicily, Enzo Bianco former Minister of Interior of all Italy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enzo_Bianco — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:101:8E38:3CF3:EF91:FE58:6B91 (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/user/JSarfatti — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:101:8E38:3CF3:EF91:FE58:6B91 (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments. When used inappropriately, it is a fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized.[2]"

He does need a refrence in Wiki but this amount... Got me?

Vufors (talk)

I'm also surprised to see him on Wikipedia. AFAICT he is a classic example of what Germans call "Hochstapler". There is no good English equivalent. It's basically someone good at making easy and unoriginal (but frequently correct) work appear original and profound. His background in physics is solid. The stuff he does is not incorrect, just shallow and of no consequence.

Really?What about this? Towler, Michael. Cambridge University Lectures on David Bohm's Quantum Pilot Wave Theory. Lecture 8 describes Sarfatti's theory of mind-matter-consciousness. http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mdt26/PWT/lectures/bohm8.pdf see slides 25 and 31

Sarfatti was the first to predict a super solid phase of helium. Ray Chiao (UC Berkeley later Merced) credits a Sarfatti paper as helpful in his experiments on self-focusing laser filaments. An early Sarfatti paper anticipated string theory and the possible connection of gravity to gluons "Henrik Johannson of CERN, Zvi Bern of UCLA and John Joseph Carrasco of Stanford (left to right) discovered in 2008 that gravitons behave very much like two gluons laid on top of each other." and more. (1969). "Destruction of Superflow in Unsaturated 4He Films and the Prediction of a New Crystalline Phase of 4He with Bose-Einstein Condensation", Physics Letters, Vol. 30, No. 5, November 3, 1969, pp. 300–301. (1967). "On the 'type II superconductor' model of self-trapped laser filaments", Physics Letters A, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 88–89. (1975). "Toward a Unified Field Theory of Gravitation and Strong Interactions", Foundations of Physics, Vol 5, No. 2. (1974). "Eightfold way as a consequence of the general theory of relativity", Collective Phenomena, Vol 1, No. 3, pp. 169–172. (1974). "The Dirac Equation and General Relativity", Foundations of Physics. (1974). "Speculations on the effects of gravitation and cosmology in hadron physics", Collective Phenomena, Vol 1. No. 3, January 1, 1974, pp. 163–167. (1973). "Regge Trajectories as Rotation Black Holes in Strong Gravity", in H. Frohlich & F.W. Cummings (eds.). Collective Phenomena. 

It's true he is arrogant, all people of that type are.JanBielawski (talk) 05:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

That type? What type? Do you mean Jews? Who is Jan Bielawski?

Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact name. In general, this page should be created and edited by User:JanBielawski. If in doubt, please verify that "JanBielawski" exists. Log in or create an account to start the User:JanBielawski page. Search for "User:JanBielawski" in existing pages of namespace User. Look for pages within Wikipedia that link to this title.

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments. When used inappropriately, it is a fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized.[2]"

Vufor's and JanBielawski's remarks are in violation of Wikipedia's rules of libel on living persons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:101:8E38:F48E:E712:4583:9FDA (talk) 06:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

What has he done? Among other things

Sarfatti was part of an informal group of physicists in California known as the Fundamental Fysiks Group, who in the 1970s, according to David Kaiser, a physicist and historian of science at MIT, helped to nurture some of the alternative ideas in quantum physics that today form the basis of quantum information science.[4]

Ad hominem libels by trolls hiding behind fake IDs like "flake" , "Hochstapler" etc. have no place in Wikipedia for any living person.

You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. Winston Churchill

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/w/winston_churchill.html#Jx77XUMM6zkkv3zB.99 2601:646:101:8E38:18FA:563E:F59A:ED7B (talk) 19:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Your shallow regurgitation of a Winston Churchill quote and the paranoid mindset it reveals notwithstanding, it sounds as if you don't actually understand the meaning of the terms "ad hominem" or "libel", Jack. --Calton | Talk 03:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

"Jack"? "An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments. When used inappropriately, it is a fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized.[2]"

Looking at Calton's talk page it is obvious that he is continually committing "Cyberbullying is the use of social networks to repeatedly harm or harass other people in a deliberate manner.[1] According to U.S. Legal Definitions, "cyber-bullying could be limited to posting rumors or gossips about a person in the internet bringing about hatred in other’s minds; or it may go to the extent of personally identifying victims and publishing materials severely defaming and humiliating them".[2]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:101:8E38:A139:5F13:7EC7:49B2 (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Post-quantum physics

The article is inaccurate. Sarfatti rejects the idea that orthodox quantum theory explains consciousness. Sarfatti proposes a new post-quantum theory to explain consciousness. Post quantum theory is to quantum theory as general relativity is to special relativity. Sarfatti's idea is explained in the Cambridge University Lecture http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mdt26/PWT/lectures/bohm8.pdf slides 25 and 31. and in Carr, Bernard. "Can Psychical Research Bridge the Gap Between Mind and Matter?", Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, Vol. 59, No. 221, June 2008.. Bernard Carr was Stephen Hawking's assistant at Cambridge and is a professor of physics at University College London. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:101:8E38:F48E:E712:4583:9FDA (talk) 06:07, 18 June 2015 (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 [1] it? →StaniStani 05:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC) https://www.academia.edu/15700723/UPDATED_091515Post-Quantum_Theory_with_Entanglement_Signaling_for_Sentient_AI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0AipdgHRtI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:180:71:7D2F:5D6F:EDF3:D10 (talk) 06:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC) Yes, academia.edu, Twitter, Facebook, Linkedin have running commentaries by Sarfatti on his evolving theory of the physics of qualia "the hard problem" that he says are Popper falsifiable. He claims nano-electronic emulations of microtubules will permit the construction of conscious machines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.77.84 (talk) 17:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

unclear references, Intelligence community

The way you wrote it is on the verge of libeling Sarfatti in violation of Wiki rules. You say you do not even have Sarfatti's text from the actual book. I suggest you get it before spreading misinformation. The New York Review of books is a notorious left-wing publication dominated by Red Diaper Babies. Sarfatti, in fact, never claimed that Bohr was a conscious atomic spy for the Soviets. Note the change I made to correct your inaccurate information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.77.84 (talk) 17:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC) While the NYR article may be correct in general they never claim that Sarfatti in particular alleged that Bohr was a conscious spy because in fact he did not write that or imply it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.77.84 (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


recent addition:

Connections with Intelligence Community
Sarfatti's friendship with Lawry Chickering who was director of the Reagan think tank Institute of Contemporary Studies in San Francisco is documented in Kaiser's book. One also finds "Jack Sarfatti, a ...SPECIAL TASKS ...Pavel and Anatoli Sudoplatov with Jerold L and Leona P. Schecter, New Foreword by Robert Conquest (Hoover Institute, Stanford) Updated Edition, pp.483-4 Back Bay Books, Little, Brown and Company 1994 ISBN 0-316-82115-2 (pb)

("Lawry" Chickering, I guess is Lawrence.) "documented in Kaiser's book." We need a real reference , this is too vague. "One also finds...." Not clear where that comes from, is this Kaiser, or it the Sudoplatov? (Appendix seven is not in first edition of Sudoplatov, so I have not been able to check it.) Anyway, Sudoplatov's claims have been refuted, calling Sarfatti's judgement into question. But does show Sarfatti's right-wing proclivity. GangofOne (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC) It is the updated paper back edition with the foreword by Robert Conquest. Obviously, you have an earlier edition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Tasks It's right here https://www.amazon.com/Special-Tasks-Anatoli-Sudoplatov/dp/0316821152 with the yellow background cover. Yes, correct "Lawrence" known as "Lawry" among his friends. Thanks for pointing out the "refutation," but in such matters of covert intelligence the truth is not clear. You are quite correct that it shows Sarfatti's right-wing proclivity a rarity among academics dominated by leftist Marxism as seen now in the 50-50 split of the American electorate in the 2016 election. Also note Sarfatti's close association with Michael Savage, which further confirms the right-wing proclivity also mentioned by David Kaiser. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Savage Institute for Contemporary Studies - SourceWatch www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Institute_for_Contemporary_Studies Mar 25, 2003 - The Institute for Contemporary Studies (ICS) describes itself as a "a ... "From 1987 to 1991, Hawkins co-hosted the San Francisco public policy ... A. Lawrence Chickering is an American public policy analyst, attorney and the founder and President of Educate Girls Globally.[1]

Chickering is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution.[2] He is the author of Beyond Left and Right: Breaking the Political Stalemate, Voice of the People: The Transpartisan Imperative in American Life and Strategic Foreign Assistance: Civil Society in International Security.

As President of Educate Girls Globally, he developed a program for promoting girls’ education and empowering traditional communities by reforming government schools.[3]

References[edit] Jump up ^ "Lawrence Chickering - Small Wars Journal". Small Wars Journal. Retrieved 10 January 2016. Jump up ^ "Lawrence Chickering". Hoover Institution. Retrieved 10 January 2016. Jump up ^ "About - Educate Girls Globally". Retrieved 10 January 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.77.84 (talk) 01:57, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Memorandum for the Record Paper by Sarfatti is to be published in AIP Proceedings of Retrocausality Workshop that was held June 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:102:8F39:DAB:AE43:F68:118C (talk) 17:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Lectures and conferences

Individual lectures and conferences do not seem notable enough in the context of an biographical encyclopedia article. El_C 20:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jack Sarfatti. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:47, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jack Sarfatti. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a CV

I can see cause to include some of the more famous work that Sarfatti may have put out there. Especially keen to see listed works that have been mentioned by WP:Independent sources. Not so happy to see so many WP:FRINGE papers that received no independent notice. To that end, I encourage people to propose papers and other publications for inclusion in a selected list here. Thanks. jps (talk) 14:59, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

LIBEL

Interesting that there's no mention of the fact that this guy is widely regarded as a crank, who haunted usenet science newsgroups for decades, spewing heaps of "sciency" sounding "theories", and debating them with himself via a plethora of sock puppets.

See sci.skeptic and sci.physics anytime between 1994 and 2006 for plentiful references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Your remark violates Wiki rules on libel. If Sarfatti were the crank you say he is, why does MIT Physics Professor David Kaiser, a well-respected historian of physics with a Ph.D. from Harvard cite Sarfatti over 600 times (Kindle ed) in his award-winning book "How the Hippies Saved Physics"? Why does Sarfatti's picture appear in NY York Times, NATURE, AMERICAN SCIENTIST, Wall Street Journal, New York Review of Books and other mainstream news in reviews of Kaiser's book if Sarfatti is the way you slander and defame him?

Note added July 29, 2020 - this page has been butchered by Communists who control Wickedpedeophiles and have censored many peer reviewed publication in physics journals by Sarfatti. These left wing hate-America activists inside Wiki hate Sarfatti because of his support of Donald Trump.

Yeah well he is not considered a crank by MIT professor of physics David Kaiser who mentions him hundreds of times in his award winning book. Kaiser credits Sarfatti and Herbert with playing a pivotal role in the creation of modern quantum information theory. Your ignorance here is obvious since if Sarfatti is a crank so are Huw Price (Cambridge Professor), Ken Wharton, Yakir Aharonov, David Bohm, Rod Sutherland, Albert Einstein and many others since if you actually looked at what Sarfatti's work is about, you would see he defends Einstein's general relativity, Yakir Aharonov's work and other non-cranky mainstream ideas. Indeed, your remarks are libelous and you are violating Wikipedia rules on living persons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doktor Strangeloop (talk • contribs) 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Please learn how to sign.
Please learn how to indent.
Please learn how to not split up other users' contributions.
I fixed all that for you. (Look at the mess you left and compare it to how it is now.)
The IP is right: Sarfatti is regarded as a crank. Maybe Martin Gardner would be a good source for that; I am sure he wrote about him. (sci.skeptic and sci.physics are not.)
A single opinion by a single person does not change that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
I just looked at your contributions to the article, Doktor Strangeloop. It is a mess too. All those little details may belong in a book-length hagiography, but not in a Wikipedia article. I will start cleaning up now. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:39, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
What he said. Jack -- and it's clear "Doktor Strangeloop" is him, sockpuppeting -- if you want to publish your CV, go open a LinkedIn account. --Calton | Talk 15:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Martin Gardner did write about Sarfatti in 1976 in MIT Technology Review re-published in Science, Good, Bad and Bogus Chapter "Magic and Paraphysics". Gardner wrote though he was skeptical of Sarfatti's claims on the use of quantum entanglement for communication, then he "would be one of the greatest physicists of all time" (from memory). However, the point is to call anyone on Wikipedia, a crank etc. is libel in violation of Wiki rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:103:7F50:3CBB:6E9C:576:12F0 (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
"A libel in violation of Wiki rules "? nonsense. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jack_Sarfatti/Archive_7&oldid=994107829"