RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Farsight

Farsight | Result: Keep

Farsight (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete

1. If this is a just an attempt to recreate a deleted article under a different name, I say delete. Spud (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
2. I zapped this as an attack page trashing BLP, which it is. Asinine first-para disclaimer notwithstanding - David Gerard (talk) 23:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Keep

1. As this article's main author, I'd hoped to avoid snarking about Farsight personally, just about Farsight's theories and modes of argumentation. I also was careful to give lots of references to various posts by Farsight in various places. I even wanted to avoid stating speculations about Farsight's identity. How does this article compare to the earlier article on John Duffield? --Lpetrich (talk) 18:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

   It's already been deleted. I suggest you lay out a solid case to restore it. 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 19:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

   The fact that its about John means that you can name it whatever you want, it's still already deleted. --Miekal 20:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

   That assumes any article about Mr. Duffield should not exist; it's possible there's a case for an article. If lpetrich wants an article, he has to make that case. This also includes arguments about Mr. Duffield's frequent use of the word "libel". FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 21:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

   My case:

   1. Farsight has shown up in numerous online forums and comment sections, presenting his theories of physics. However, these theories have numerous errors, and it would be helpful to collect explanations of these errors. The errors cover a wide range, from the nature of time to the natures of elementary particles. They include the likes of denial that elementary particles have non-rotation angular momentum and that the notion the Higgs mechanism is contrary to what Einstein said about mass and energy. The mission of RationalWiki includes "Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement" and "Documenting the full range of crank ideas", so a debunking of Farsight's theories would fit right in.
   2. Farsight claims superior expertise in relativity, electrodynamics, particle physics, and the like. Furthermore, he supports his claims with quotes from heroes of science like Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Minkowski, and Feynman, and he claims that commonly-presented versions of their theories have errors from their departing from the originals. The idea that he is returning to what these heroes had taught is an idea that may unduly impress some people. Especially since some of these heroes are well-known as heroes. The article shows that these heroes often did not have the beliefs that Farsight attributes to them. It could be improved by clarifying that science does not proceed by its heroes issuing revelations, but is instead a collective enterprise.
   3. Farsight uses forms of argument that are typical of theology and similar fields, but that are rare in the physical sciences, even in physical pseudosciences. This alone is very distinctive.
   4. This article avoids speculating about Farsight's identity, and instead, works from what someone using the handle "Farsight" has posted in various places, complete with links to the original pages. The article contains a small fraction of the possible references that one could make to Farsight's online statements.
   5. This article avoids making snarky comments about Farsight himself, reserving them for his theories and methods. Or at least I had hoped. I also tried to keep its tone calm and sober.
   6. John Duffield has been known to threaten to sue people for libel for stating unflattering things about him. The article is about "Farsight" rather than about "John Duffield", and it is based on statements posted under the name "Farsight". So John Duffield will have to state under penalty of perjury that Farsight is him. Furthermore, he lives in the United Kingdom, a nation with a reputation for being a destination of libel tourism, though that has changed with the Defamation Act 2013. The United States, however, tends to be more strict about what qualifies as libel than the United Kingdom. I do not pretend to be an expert on libel law, but it is unlikely that anything that any of us have posted here on this issue would qualify as libel in most US jurisdictions. In fact, several US ones have anti-SLAPP laws, SLAPP being strategic lawsuit against public participation, using the legal system for harassment. ^{— Unsigned, by: Lpetrich / talk / contribs} 09:32, 20 April 2015‎

   Browsing through the deleted Farsight article, I can't see any reason that it shouldn't be restored. It attacks the scientific validity of Farsight's ideas and Farsight's semi-apologetic/quasi-religious style of argumentation. This is markedly different from the vaporised John Duffield article which targeted a named person, not an online pseudonym, and where the ridicule might far easier be construed as libel (using terms such as crank and cook etc.) - an especially iffy prospect given Duffield's threatening behaviour and that as a British resident he can avail himself of the ludicrously lax UK libel laws. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

   I second the Wombat. --Castaigne (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

2. Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 11:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
3. This article is about Farsight. Don't see any mention of Duffield here. Since on-mission and not about Duffield, I see no problem. --Castaigne (talk) 18:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

   Farsight = Duffield FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 19:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

   That might be so, but there isn't any information in the article that would confirm or tell me that. Or you that. And saying so would be, well, rampant speculation absent additions to the article. Picking up what I'm putting down? --Castaigne (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

   I can go out of my way to name name, say, Hovind in an article about him, but the article is still about Hovind. Uust because we don't mention him by name doesn't change anything. --Miekal 14:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

   Mr. Duffield said pretty much exactly what Miekal said. Mr. Duffield knows who the article is about; if we're worried about libel, this hasn't changed his view of the article. ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 15:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Goat

• This article's subject is John Duffield. John Duffield was deleted. This article may also merit deletion. If it does not, some distinction should be made between the original article and this article. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 16:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

So...you don't care if it gets deleted or not? Bicycle^wheel 16:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd like an article on this subject. But since the last one failed so badly in votes, I don't even wanna bother voting. FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 17:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)