This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) 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 sourcedmust 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 a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
"This article is an autobiography or has been extensively edited by the subject or by someone connected to the subject. (December 2018)"
Why is that bad? It seems completely nonsensical and stupid. So, someone who has no connection with the person is better qualified than someone who is? That is really stupid woke lunacy. Not only that, it's completely hypocritical and double-standard look for example at the Wiki page on say David Chappelle. It's obviously written by highly paid PR men connected to Chappelle and there is nothing wrong with that. 2601:646:102:27F0:8CF:A196:2F9C:3EBD (talk) 06:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are starting from the thoroughly false assumption that people always tell the truth about themselves. The people who made the Wikipedia rules actually thought longer and deeper about them than you did.
This page is for improving the article; it is not a blog for expressing uninformed rants about Wikipedia policy. 2600:8802:571B:E00:A526:EFC2:B8AD:93C (talk) 02:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-tagged the article with {{Cleanup weighted}} and {{POV}}. There are plenty of sources that criticize Sarfatti, such as this article from the Skeptical Inquirer which says [i]t occurs to me that Scarfatti's [sic] Internet Science Education Project with all its scientific double talk makes perfect sense if we consider it to be parody. You can also look in the seven(!) archives of this talk page for more, including some legal threats by (someone claiming to be) Sarfatti himself. (The account making said claim was personally banned – not just blocked – by Jimbo.) While older revisions on the page were biased against Sarfatti, the current version excludes criticism of his ideas. Therefore, I have re-added the aforementioned tags. HouseBlastertalk 00:57, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
