Talk:Richard Sternberg

Opening Paragraph

The opening paragraph states the controversy behind R. Sternberg's handling of the editing process but does not explain both sides of the controversy, taking a anti-Sternberg point of view. By definition, controversy requires two or more sides to exist in disagreement, as such I've taken the liberty of elaborating on the controversy with the inclusion of the following text to the end of the paragraph: "Conversely, Sternberg claimed that he followed the standard peer review process for publication of the article and consulted with several qualified parties before accepting the paper for publication." I've included a reference to Sternberg's own website explaining his position on the controversy. I believe this presents a clearer picture for the reader and helps to correct the existing bias of the paragraph. As a community, are there any thoughts, negative or otherwise about this change? I've already come into conflict with several contributors, none of who are willing to discuss the matter. --Novan Leon (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Novan asked me for some advice on this, which I've provided on his talk page - based on the edit summaries I saw, this would seem to be a brief summary of why the edits keep getting reverted. Correct me if I'm wrong, of course, but be aware I don't plan to become too involved in this. I will keep an eye on things as needed, but that's about it.

"Looking at the article history, it would seem that one of the reasons people are reverting your edit is because of the reference - while it is good that you're providing one, it needs to be from a third-party site, not affiliated with Wikipedia or Mr. Sternberg. Also, WP:NPOV does not means that you have to "balance" an article with pro- and con- points of view: giving undue weight to a minority concern can alter the neutrality of an article significantly. For example, if 9 out of 10 dentists say that Crest toothpaste is the best brand, you may want to mention that dentist #10 doesn't say so, but there's no need to explain in too much detail why he feels that way, or mention which brand he considers to be the best (or why). Based solely on edit summaries, those seem to be the main reasons, however a discussion on the matter would certainly help out. Just remember, don't keep fighting over it during the discussion - let a consensus come out, then act accordingly."

Best of luck. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to provide some perspective as to why I think my suggested changes are warranted. My primary concerns are two-fold.

(1) Concerning the R. Sternberg controversy, in this instance there doesn't appear to be a clearly established majority/minority opinion on the issue (ie. that Richard Sternberg circumvented the usual peer review process). In order to censor the inclusion of both sides of the controversy in the initial paragraph on the basis of undue weight, I would like to see references supporting this position. As it is, there is only R. Sternberg's word versus that of the journal's publisher with a massive influx of people taking either side purely based on the subject matter involved and not around the accuracy of either side's statements.

(2) The reference supporting the journal's position (ref #2) appears to be taken directly from one of the the party's involved. While this may make the most sense given the nature of the controversy, I believe it is also important to present the other side of the controversy (rather, it makes little sense NOT to).

(3) An additional concern of mine is readability. The first time I read through the initial paragraph, I was a little confused as to what the controversy was about. I knew there was some questionable handling of the publishing process involved but it did not strike me as a controversial ordeal, merely that he had done something wrong and then released. Only upon learning that Sternberg had staunchly refuted the publisher's claims and there was some question about harrasment, etc, did it make sense to be called a controversy. This is also related to the the proposed addition for "is best known for" to help clarify matters for the casual reader.

I'd love to hear additional input on this from other members. Thanks. --Novan Leon (talk) 19:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

One of the problems with WP is the policy about reliable sources. Stuff taken from self-published sources is not accepted by the WP community, and will always be reverted. There are other consequences - truth and accuracy sometimes lags behind published sources. Maybe in the future the discussion about his peer review will make it to some other publishing source, at which point WP can include it. Dan Beale-Cocks 21:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS, WP:V and WP:A and reconsider your concerns in light of these policies and guideline. FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Four things:

1. The reference is concerning R. Sternberg's opinion. I can provide a third party source for this opinion but the original source would still be the man himself. The ultimate source for any opinion is the individual. Would simply providing a third party source that references R. Sternberg's opinion be a more acceptable reference over quoting him directly? It doesn't seem so to me. After all, we are dealing with a clash of unverifiable claims made by two separate parties (hence, the controversy). If we were to take the WP:RS guidelines to their full extent, there would be nothing to talk about in this case, as very little has been verified by third party research concerning this case.

2. Similar information is included in the body of the article with a similar reference (ref #12), so I believe this change to be consistent with the flavor of the rest of the article.

3. Reference #2 is taken from a party directly involved in the controversy and makes several statements about the subjects handling of the controversy that is unverifiable.

4. Rather than removing the first party statements on both sides of the controversy, for the sake of the reader, doesn't it make more sense to summarize both opposing viewpoints surrounding the controversy? --Novan Leon (talk) 14:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Novan on this, though I doubt it would every be changed to a fair paragraph. The claims on both sides should be represented and I will try to change this to a third party sourced one, which you will most likely find another reason to reject.--Tembew (talk) 16:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, that paragraph needs a rewrite. It should not focus on the controversy at all. Why are all these articles so messy? --Tembew (talk) 16:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Biological Society of Washington citation problem

Has anyone noticed that one of the links used to support the BSWs position on the peer review controversy does not link to a website, and the other one links to a webpage that only contains the position, but does not include any other information about the managers of that website, making it impossible to verify the source of this information? Also the webpage that contains the quote mentions the site www.biolsocwash.org and a site created by the BSW and that site does not exist either.

I think that all referenences to the aforementioned information be removed until VERIFIABLE sources of this information can be found. Mathezar (talk) 16:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I have noticed that no one is trying to fix the citation problems I mentioned. Do we just want those references removed then? Mathezar (talk) 07:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ongoing misrepresentation of relationship with the Smithsonian

I see that on the International Journal of General Systems website Sternberg's listed as "Richard von Sternberg[1] - Smithsonian Institute, USA" -- this in spite of him being warned by the Smithosnian that:

Your continuing association with the Smithsonian Institution

as a Research Associate, of course, requires you to comport with the standards of conduct as set forth under SD 205 to which all Research Associates are held accountable. This includes the requirement that Research Associates not -represent their relationship to the Institution, particularly in any way representing themselves as employees of the

Smithsonian. [-- Souder report appendix]

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Now the question remains, whose fault is it? Sternberg's, IJGS's or nobodys? Sternberg resigned from the Smithsonian in 2007 (correct me if I'm wrong). Then 1. Sternberg intentionally wants to link himself to Smithsonian OR 2. IJGS didn't have enough interest/forgot to update the listing OR 3. the listing went to publisher and it was too late to edit before it was printed. Personally I think it is either option 2 or 3, Sternberg seems pretty fed up with Smithsonian.86.50.9.167 (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• I have been stymied in my attempt to find the facts regarding Sternberg's present relationship with the Smithsonian.

"The Smithsonian renewed his Research Collaborator status for another three years in 2006." http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/sternberg

Sternberg says this was a demotion from Associate to Collaborator.

"Despite official assurances of fair treatment from the Smithsonian to congressional investigators, when I applied for renewal of my Research Associate position in 2006, my application was denied and I was offered the position of Research Collaborator—a demotion—without explanation." http://www.rsternberg.net/smithsonian.php?page=summary

But when he gets up in the morning and goes to work, where does he go?

"After the Meyer incident, he remained an employee of NIH and his unpaid position at the Smithsonian was extended in 2006, although he has not shown up there in years." http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/sternberg

The Smithsonian's warning in the quote box above seems to hinge on the fact that while Sternberg was or is technically employed by the NIH, part of the agreement was that he would work half the time at the SI.

"Mr. Sternberg, 41, is employed at the National Center for Biotechnology Information, a part of the National Institutes of Health. But as part of his duties there, he spends half of his time at the Smithsonian as a research associate." http://www.ntskeptics.org/news/news2005-02-18.htm

"The Smithsonian Institution (SI) has taken legal steps to ensure that RAs are not employees of the SI. Our investigation revealed that you are a Title 42 Scientist, employed by the National Institute of Health (NIH). Pursuant to your agreement with the NIH, you are allowed to work 50% of your time at NIH and the other 50% with the SI. This is a common arrangement with both NIH and the SI. While your case was pending the Board decided the Fishbein v. D.H.H.S case. This case exempts Title 42 Scientists from Title 5 protections, which would effectively remove you from the protections granted under the auspices of OSC. OSC's initial investigation supports the SI's contention that you are not an employee, and therefore are not covered under the jurisdictional statutes imposed upon OSC. Further the attorney for the SI has made it clear that the SI will not voluntarily participate in any additional investigation into your complaint. They will legally challenge our jurisdictional authority." http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1488 Yopienso (talk) 23:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

A good article about Sternberg

R. Sternberg has written and "intellectual biography" which could be interesting to participants. It is 12 pages long but well worth a read. [2] 86.50.9.167 (talk) 16:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It is another dishonest & self-serving screed from this self-created professional martyr -- no mention of Sternberg's prior involvement with Meyer & ID (RAPID, ISCID), no mention that the article was not original (it was a rehash of prior material) and off-topic for the journal, he lies about the relevance of his expertise (unrelated to palaeontology), lies about a non-existent "failed attempt to have me fired from the NIH". Just further evidence that Sternberg is not a WP:RS, and that his claims need to be reported with extreme care. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, he expressly states that he didn't have any significant connection with Meyer prior to the "Meyer article". Furthermore, the article was about taxonomy (that's biology). He also mentions that he forwarded the article prior to the publication to a geologist and three biologists. As for RAPID, ISCID, I'm not sure but it's possible that he joined these organisations AFTER being harrassed in the Smithsonian (when you look up ISCID's about page, it doesn't mention ID, another conspiracy?). I do agree that his claims need to be treated with extreme care, but in the worst case Wikipedias "Reliable source" policy cuts any means for an individual to defend him-/herself from lies/libel. All sides must be taken to account, because this is extremely controversial matter for some reason.86.50.9.167 (talk) 18:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No, the article was about (a fairly typical Creationist misrepresentation of) the Cambrian explosion -- the "taxonomy" bit was little more than window-dressing. He never admits who these "geologist and three biologists" were. From his negative description, I would surmise that they were Old Earth creationists. RAPID was in 2002, and was hosted by ISCID, so this was well before publication. Sternberg was not "harrassed in the Smithsonian" -- all that happened was a few private emails questioning between his colleagues questioning his involvement -- which only became public due to his self-inflicted martyrdom. Sternberg is the liar and the one guilty of libel. WP:DUE does not mean that "all sides must be taken to account" -- only the weight of opinion in reliable sources -- which is something that Sternberg has amply proven himself not to be. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

"didn't have any significant connection with Meyer" No not being in the same lying group The discovery Institute is a connection? Its just a coincidence he decided to deliberately fail to do his job and ignore safe guards? just like its coincidence your a creationist.203.213.124.32 (talk) 08:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Taxonomy and paleontology seem heavily linked so it's proper to discuss both in the same article, no problem there (that's why he chose a geologist to review it). Sternberg doesn't reveal the names of these "three biologists and a geologist" because of possible implications to their career in this hot atmosphere. However, he (Sternberg) mentioned in his own article (which started this discussion) that these were not especially empathetical towards ID, but they supported the publication (despite the possible controversy) because it would start some discussion. Quote: "So I asked three biologists and a geologist to review the manuscript - all of whom I knew to be neither young earth creationists nor neo-Darwinians nor affiliated with the Discovery Institute nor particularly sympathetic to the Intelligent design position." To conclude that these must have been old earth creationist is simply a non sequitur. You do not know enough about them. As to the persecution/harrasment of Sternberg, that's clearly a matter of who you (want to) believe. Do you believe the NCSE & co. or the person in question? There IS a possibility that Sternberg first gets discredited -> he is not "a reliable source" -> he has simply no way to defend himself. Assume A, conclude B which confirms A. Fantastic argument because it is always right. 86.50.9.167 (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

1. "Taxonomy and paleontology seem heavily linked so it's proper to discuss both in the same article, no problem there (that's why he chose a geologist to review it)." You overstate the relationship and overlook the fact that the editorial panel contained expert paleontologists that Sternberg decided to exclude from oversight of this paper.
2. "As to the persecution/harrasment of Sternberg, that's clearly a matter of who you (want to) believe." -- rubbish. There is a voluminous amount of evidence, which quite simply fails to support Sternberg's fairy stories. Sternberg makes allegations, doesn't provide facts to back them up (no judicial or congressional inquiry has established any wrong-doing), and what facts have been turned up frequently contradict the details of his claims (or demonstrate them as being heavily misrepresented). Therefore Sternberg loses credibility.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• I choose to believe the U.S. Office of Special Counsel. http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1488 I cannot imagine why any rational person who can read English would have a problem believing this, except that he simply chooses to believe only what he wants to believe rather than examining the facts and drawing a logical conclusion. The facts are that a government agency investigated Sternberg's claims and substantiated them. "A complicated jurisdictional puzzle" (quoting from the letter) prevented the agency from moving on Sternberg's behalf. Yopienso (talk) 17:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Believe them if you wish, but your source is a fringe pseudoscientific source, and its use on Wikipedia is subject to restrictions accordingly. The DI's claims have a habit of not standing up in court. . dave souza, talk 22:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I realize an extremist source published the letter, but I will believe the letter to be genuine until someone can show me it is a hoax. All mainstream sources have to do to quash a report is refuse to publish it--Orwell called that tactic the "memory hole."

• "In November 2004, Sternberg filed a complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC), a branch of the Department of Justice empowered to investigate claims of discrimination by government employees. In a letter to Sternberg in August 2005, an OSC attorney named James McVay told Sternberg that they were closing the investigation due to a lack of jurisdiction; since Sternberg was not actually an employee of the Smithsonian they could not exercise any authority over decisions made in his situation." Then the source, aimed at debunking the movie, offers strong opinions with no sourcing as to why the letter was inappropriate, ending, "Indeed, McVay’s letter was highly polemical, consisting mostly of unsupported rhetoric and boilerplate aimed at those evil scientists who don’t like creationism. All of this was highly inappropriate." I have read the letter and do not find it even slightly polemical, but typical, neutral, legal talk. These are, of course, only his and my different opinions. http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-04-17

• National Public Radio seems to think the letter is valid, and documents Eugenie Scott's and the NCSE's involvement in the case. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5007508

• I have just left a message in Mailbox 3670 at the Office of Special Counsel in Washington, D.C., 1-800-872-9855, inquiring whether this letter is valid. When and if I receive a reply, I will update this page. Yopienso (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Whoops! Forgot to include this most important reference to McVay's letter in The Washington Post, a newspaper Wikipedia recognizes as a "newspaper of record": "Newspaper of record is a term that may refer either to any publicly available newspaper that has been authorized by a government to publish public or legal notices, or any major newspaper that has a large circulation and whose editorial and news-gathering functions are considered professional and typically authoritative." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_of_record http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Post I will paste in perhaps too large an excerpt, but I don't want to be accused of quote-mining.

An independent agency has come to the same conclusion, accusing top scientists at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History of retaliating against Sternberg by investigating his religion and smearing him as a "creationist."

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel, which was established to protect federal employees from reprisals, examined e-mail traffic from these scientists and noted that "retaliation came in many forms . . . misinformation was disseminated through the Smithsonian Institution and to outside sources. The allegations against you were later determined to be false."

"The rumor mill became so infected," James McVay, the principal legal adviser in the Office of Special Counsel, wrote to Sternberg, "that one of your colleagues had to circulate [your résumé] simply to dispel the rumor that you were not a scientist."

The Washington Post and two other media outlets obtained a copy of the still-private report.

McVay, who is a political appointee of the Bush administration, acknowledged in the report that a fuller response from the Smithsonian might have tempered his conclusions. As Sternberg is not a Smithsonian employee -- the National Institutes of Health pays his salary -- the special counsel lacks the power to impose a legal remedy.

A spokeswoman for the Smithsonian Institution declined comment, noting that it has not received McVay's report.

"We do stand by evolution -- we are a scientific organization," said Linda St. Thomas, the spokeswoman. An official privately suggested that McVay might want to embarrass the institution. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/18/AR2005081801680.html

• New subject: How do I tag this article as not having a neutral point of view? Yopienso (talk) 01:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

OSC Investigation and Preliminary Report

I have just reviewed the Wiki protocol on undue weight, and agree with its stance. Therefore, I fail to see how my insertions gave undue weight. The letter, right here on the internet in PDF, is legitimate and official. My editing follows the introductory phrase, "Sternberg disputes." He does name the groups--one a vague generality, "federal employees," and the other a specific group, the National Center for Science Education. There is no question whatsoever that this named group was heavily involved in the controversy. There is no mystery here and no reason to suppress these facts. Because it is part of Sternberg's dispute, it does not give undue weight; it merely includes pertinent facts about his dispute. I wish to restore my work. Yopienso (talk) 17:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The letter was written by a notorious political partisan, who later left the OSC under a cloud. The OSC had no jurisdiction, and so has no official standing. His claim that the NCSE was "heavily involved" is complete BS -- as released emails demonstrate. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Sternberg peer review controversy#Smithsonian controversy already covers this issue in detail, and I see no reason to create a WP:POVFORK of it here. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Hrafn--I just experienced an "Edit conflict" for the first time, so I'm trying to walk through this. You and I were posting at the same time. So, in answer to your most recent comment, should I insert the additional information you deleted from this article into the other article?

Here's the main post that crossed yours:

Two points here: First, isn't your opinion on the writer of the letter WP:OR and WP:SYN? The question in point is Sternberg's disputation, and he posted the letter. In order to suppress the letter you would need to have a secondary source that discredits it. Second, I always want to follow the facts, wherever they may lead, so please provide a link which I can originally research for my own satisfaction, since OR isn't allowed at Wiki, that shows James McVay was a notorious political partisan who left the OSC under a cloud. I've been unable to google that information. The closest I've found is "...McVay, a former Marine drill sergeant and insurance attorney with no experience in employment law, whistleblower law, or federal-sector work." http://www.portlandphoenix.com/features/top/ts_multi/documents/04671543.asp. Regarding the NCSE's involvement, it is widely documented. "You will learn that NCSE’s Eugenie C. Scott advised the scientists at the SI: “First, above all, we believe strongly that the discussion should not be a referendum on Dr. von Sternberg’s personal scientific beliefs, even though they clearly fall outside of the normal scientific mainstream. Obviously Dr. von Sternberg’s religious beliefs are also off the table. The focus should be on the fact that he allowed into the pages of PBSW a paper that was inappropriate for the journal in both content and quality” (Scott to Sues, 8/26/04, emphasis added). That the embarrassing publication of a shoddy research paper was the issue – not Sternberg’s religious orientation – is echoed by many other SI scientists, although you would not learn this from the producers of Expelled." http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/sternberg Yopienso (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The National Center for Science Education gave proper advice to the relevant staff once the controversy had started. What are you trying to say here? A mainstream organisation with concerns about science education advised due care when dealing with a creationist in dispute, this does not seem to be a relevant issue. . dave souza, talk 22:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Dave-- User Hrafn said, "His [McVay's, I assume] claim that the NCSE was 'heavily involved' is complete BS." What I'm trying to say here is that the NCSE was indeed heavily involved in the Smithsonian-Sternberg controversy.

User Hrafn has not answered my query, "Should I insert the additional information you deleted from this article into the other article?" Judging from his and your user pages, you seem to have rank on him (and on me), so I will now address my query to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopienso (talk • contribs) 00:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yopienso:

1. Your claim that the NCSE was "heavily involved" is not supported by the above quote, which only demonstrates that the Scott attempted to advise the SI scientists to moderate and narrow the focus of their storm of consternation that Sternberg's editorial misadventure had created.
2. Given that (i) James McVay['s boss Scott Bloch] was notorious for his far-right partisan mishandling of the OSC (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL for details), (ii) the OSC had no jusridiction in this case & (iii) materially misrepresented the NCSE's peripheral involvement in thr controversy, his letter would appear to have little reliability as a source and little reason to give it any WP:WEIGHT.
3. No, "User Hrafn has not answered my query" -- because User Hrafn has only just read it. Dave does not "rank" on me except in issues pertaining to Admin tools (e.g. page protection & blocks). For the record, I consider [the OSC letter] to fall under WP:RS#Extremist and fringe sources and thus consider that his claims about third parties should not be given any weight anywhere.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It was in fact McVay's boss Scott Bloch who "left the OSC under a cloud". But McVay was both Bloch's political appointee & hatchetman (see this news search for their ties), so I think I can be forgiven for conflating them more than a year after I last delved into this mess. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Hi, Hrafn--I should have alerted you to my previous post; I had thought you were watching this page.

Still, neither you nor Dave have answered my question about adding the pertinent information you deleted here to the page about the controversy. Both articles seem biased against Sternberg, so much so I think they should be so tagged. For the third time, may I add that information to the controversy article?

I took a little umbrage at your use of the abbreviation "BS." Could we please refrain from using profanity? OK--I forgive you and that's over.

Thanks for the leads on Bloch/McVay. I'm pondering all the information currently available to me. I had thought you were suggesting McVay's letter was a hoax perpetrated by Discovery Institute. Now I see you're discrediting the report itself because of the political affiliations of McVay's boss. I'm not sure how much weight that carries, but it's something for me to consider. Rep. Souder's intelligent design bias carries more. On the other hand, Eugenie Scott is an overt anti-creationist activist, so she is even more biased. So are you and Dave souza, according to your editing histories at Wiki.

Michael Shermer usually has a level-headed "Just the facts, Ma'am" approach that makes points with me. He is emphatically anti-creationist, yet is polite and respectful and doesn't give one the feeling that he's hiding behind a wall and hurling stones. I saw him interview a creationist months or years ago and was struck by his fairness. His take on the movie and Sternberg is the most balanced I've found, only disagreeing with his evaluation of the McVay report as "polemic." "Polemic" to me means "rant." http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-04-17

I disagree that you can judge that letter "Extremist and fringe." That term is better applied to the Discovery Institute than to a US government agency, however corrupt. As I asked above, "First, isn't your opinion on the writer of the letter WP:OR and WP:SYN? Etc."

Good news for me--this orgy of research (Ha! of googling!) and discussion here at Wiki I've been engaged in for the past few days, largely thanks to having to be off a broken toe, has produced an epiphany (deliberately choosing an ironic word): I finally get why creationism can't be taught in science class--it isn't science! (I had thought it wise to examine all sides of any issue. Now I see that it's not another side, but another issue.) And this quote of Scott's by Shermer regarding Sternberg is heartening: "On the other hand, his creationist views should not be the main focus of the criticism. First, if he can do good standard science, that’s all we care about. Newton did pretty good science, and had some pretty nutty additional ideas about reality, too. So if he keeps the nut stuff out of his basically descriptive work, that’s fine. His science should stand or fall on its own."

The bottom line for me, and something I had not previously believed, is that the mainstream culture is indeed adamant in its refusal to allow the facts to be candidly explored. I draw that conclusion from the way I have not been allowed to include pertinent information in this article or the one about the movie. When I see two armed camps, both guilty of subterfuge, it's impossible for me to know whom to believe. Shermer is the most convincing. As Wiki continues to grow, my hope is that it will permit documented truth regardless of how PC or un-PC it may be. Yopienso (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

1. "I should have alerted you to my previous post; I had thought you were watching this page."
   • I am watching this page. And I responded to your response more expeditiously than you just responded to mine. So (i) learn some patience & (ii) stop bugging me on my talkpage!
2. "Still, neither you nor Dave have answered my question about adding the pertinent information you deleted here to the page about the controversy."
   • "For the record, I consider [the OSC letter] to fall under WP:RS#Extremist and fringe sources and thus consider that his claims about third parties should not be given any weight anywhere."
3. "Now I see you're discrediting the report itself because of the political affiliations of McVay's boss."
   • "Given that (i) James McVay['s boss Scott Bloch] was notorious for his far-right partisan mishandling of the OSC (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL for details), (ii) the OSC had no jusridiction in this case & (iii) materially misrepresented the NCSE's peripheral involvement in thr controversy, his letter would appear to have little reliability as a source and little reason to give it any WP:WEIGHT." -- it is thus only one of three reasons I gave why this letter is 'discredited'.
4. "On the other hand, Eugenie Scott is an overt anti-creationist activist, so she is even more biased."
   • However, unlike Sternberg, McVay, Bloch & Souder, there is no evidence that she's lied, misrepresented or betrayed trust placed in her. That gives her considerably more credibility.

That may be true, so you can produce a credible source that demonstrates that Sternberg lied? Let's see it! Forgive my impertinence, but I don't really want to just take you at your word that Sternberg is a liar. Mathezar (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

1. "I disagree that you can judge that letter 'Extremist and fringe.' That term is better applied to the Discovery Institute than to a US government agency, however corrupt."
   • The Bush Administration hardly had "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", so the "government agency" aspect doesn't hold much weight. And, from memory, a number of commentators impeached the letter's accuracy. And Shermer's description of it as "polemic" certainly supports my contention that it is extremist. And no, wikt:polemic does not mean "rant", it means "[t]he art or practice of aggressive debate, attack on or refutation of the opinions or principles of another" -- "rabble rousing" would perhaps be the most accurate colloquial synonym.
2. "First, isn't your opinion on the writer of the letter WP:OR and WP:SYN? Etc."
   • WP:OR and WP:SYN apply to material inserted into articles, NOT to assessments of reliability of sources (which by their nature tend to require a degree of original research & original synthesis to assess reliability).

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• "I should have alerted you to my previous post; I had thought you were watching this page."

That was a friendly overture; I was taking responsibility for my failure to alert you to a new message.

I'm sorry for unintentionally annoying you, and won't repeat the mistake of posting on your talk page.

• Based on evidence I've found, I disagree with some of you assertions, but we don't need to argue about them.

• I do agree with you that Eugenie Scott seems to be a gracious and trustworthy person. I've watched her keep her cool in tense interviews--shouting matches, almost--and good-naturedly remark that sometimes she thinks her first name must be Atheist, as in, "And now we'll hear from Atheist Eugenie Scott."  :)

• Thank you for the information you've shared with me, particularly about the OSC, and for your time. Yopienso (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

liar?

Comments were in keeping with WP:BLP#Non-article space as both (i) substantiated by sources & (ii) "related or useful to making article content choices"
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
An avid editor repeatedly called Sternberg a liar in a recent discussion section. I assume that this is now the modus operandi at Wikipedia? Accusing notable people under the cloak of anonymity? Northfox (talk) 12:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC) addeddum: Especially in light of Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Non-article_space Northfox (talk) 12:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC) Yes, Northfox, when it comes to controversial PC issues, that is the m.o.; the rules don't apply. Actually, the rules do apply: there is more than one set, and one rule is that the rules can be put aside when common sense says they should be. The meaning of "common sense" is what the administrator prefers. Wiki is innovative and ground-breaking, and reliable on many subjects. It is strongly biased on political, moral, and religious controversies. Reliable in those areas when it comes to, for example, describing what various factions are, but weighted toward the PC when contrasting or evaluating them. What I've concluded is that I can trust Wiki's info in non-controversial areas, and take the PC stuff with a grain of salt and check out their assertions elsewhere. Some of these subjects are so very controversial that even checking nearly every available online resource leaves the searcher incapable of pinning down any documented truth, but left wading through a morass of "he said, they said." So the Wiki editorial staff chooses to go with the mainstream, PC versions in these cases. Now that I've realized that, I just accept that's the stance here; no use trying to make it any less biased. I had thought Wiki was one of the few refuges of impartial information on the net, but it isn't. If you find one, please drop by my talk page and let me know. 209.161.180.190 (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC) Whoa--I didn't realize I was logged out. Yopienso (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC) Clueless? The description was neither "recent" nor 'repeated'. It was made over a year ago, and only once. nope! May I quote Hrafn? First: Hrafn 18:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC) ... and off-topic for the journal, he lies about the ..., lies about a non-existent ... and second: HrafnTalkStalk 18:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Sternberg is the liar and the one guilty of libel. Quote end. 2 x lie, 1 x liar. QED Northfox (talk) 09:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC) It was in response to an editor pointing out that Sternberg "expressly states that he didn't have any significant connection with Meyer prior to the 'Meyer article'" -- which statement I demonstrated to be false, and complaining that WP:RS "cuts any means for an individual to defend him-/herself from lies/libel". At which point I pointed out that it was Sternberg that was lying, not those he was accusing of persecuting himself. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC) If Northfox is refering to my more recent statement "However, unlike Sternberg, McVay, Bloch & Souder, there is no evidence that she's lied, misrepresented or betrayed trust placed in her", it is a stretch to claim that this is calling any one of those individuals a "liar". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC) Begging your pardon, Hrafn, but a year and 2 weeks ago in two separate posts you impugned Sternberg's integrity no fewer than nine times: "dishonest" (The self-created professional martyr wrote a dishonest screed.) "& self-serving" (The self-created professional martyr wrote a self-serving screed.) "...he lies about the relevance of his expertise..." "[He] lies about a non-existent 'failed attempt to have me fired....'" "...Sternberg is not a WP:RS..." "...his claims need to be reported with extreme care." "Sternberg is the liar..." "...and the one guilty of libel." "Sternberg has amply proven himself not to be [a reliable source]." Since that time you have not retracted your assertions, so they still stand as current, if not technically recent. One week ago you wrote, "Therefore Sternberg loses credibility." Yesterday you wrote, "However, unlike Sternberg, McVay, Bloch & Souder, there is no evidence that she's lied, misrepresented or betrayed trust placed in her." Today you wrote, "it was Sternberg that was lying." You said you demonstrated as false his assertion of "any significant connection with Meyer prior to the "Meyer article." I have been unable to find that demonstration on this page. Please help me find it. You wrote, "If Northfox is refering to my more recent statement "However, unlike Sternberg, McVay, Bloch & Souder, there is no evidence that she's lied, misrepresented or betrayed trust placed in her", it is a stretch to claim that this is calling any one of those individuals a "liar"." English is my first language and I handle it well, yet I cannot understand this sentence to mean anything other than "Sternberg and/or McVay and/or Bloch and/or Souder has or have lied and/or misrepresented and/or betrayed trust placed in him or them." Therefore, I cannot see the "stretch" in alleging that you called one of them a liar. No, not word-for-word "Sternberg is a liar," but certainly so insinuating. Yopienso (talk) 22:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC) Yopienso (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Yopienso: you can beg my pardon all you want, you will not get my pardon for this contemptible violation of WP:AGF. Given that you have butchered what I in fact said, here is what I wrote, over a year ago: It [[3]] is another dishonest & self-serving screed from this self-created professional martyr -- no mention of Sternberg's prior involvement with Meyer & ID (RAPID, ISCID), no mention that the article was not original (it was a rehash of prior material) and off-topic for the journal, he lies about the relevance of his expertise (unrelated to palaeontology), lies about a non-existent "failed attempt to have me fired from the NIH". Just further evidence that Sternberg is not a WP:RS, and that his claims need to be reported with extreme care. Although the language is perhaps immoderate, the contents is accurate, and I stand by it. Sternberg's and Meyer's involvement together in ISCID & RAPID is documented, with secondary sources, in the second and third paragraphs in Sternberg peer review controversy#Criticism. I believe my other specific points in the above quote are supported elsewhere in that article. Which in turn supports my general point about the unreliability of this "intellectual biography" by Sternberg, and by implication Sternberg's general unreliability as a source. "I have been stymied in my attempt to find the facts regarding Sternberg's present relationship with the Smithsonian." Then read this. Having accepted that "an extremist source published the letter", you have no choice except to allow the restrictions in WP:RS#Extremist and fringe sources to apply to it -- which preclude its use in this article. This is in addition to a number of sources questioning the reliability of its findings (and of the Souder report that regurgitates them), which would preclude its acceptability under the general terms of WP:RS. In conclusion, I would state that a sufficient number of commentators have questioned Sternberg's veracity, that doing so myself, particularly in regards to evaluating his reliability as a source (which WP:RS & WP:V give us a clear remit for), is not out of line. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Hrafn, you are too funny! That kind of "butchering" I call dissecting and mounting. So, bottom line, you are calling Sternberg a liar, right? Just like Northfox said, "An avid editor repeatedly called Sternberg a liar in a recent discussion section." The description is now both "recent" and "repeated" in every sense of the words. You could have saved yourself the trouble of denying it, and me all that time in the lab dissecting. Unfortunately, when I click on the link to find out about Sternberg's present relationship with the Smithsonian, I get a notice, "You are not authorized to view this page." Please keep in mind that readers of talk pages are unlikely to be aware of pertinent comments you may have made on other pages. In any case, I cannot find either in your comments on the other page, nor in the page at The Panda's Thumb footnoted there, any documentation of Sternberg's having had "any significant connection with Meyer prior to the 'Meyer article'." "Significant" is the qualifier here; this reminds me of the Republicans' attempts to link Barack Obama with Bill Ayers. I have not accepted that the US government is "an extremist source." I wrote," "I disagree that you can judge that letter 'Extremist and fringe.' That term is better applied to the Discovery Institute than to a US government agency, however corrupt." The fact that the letter is not from an extremist or fringe source does not mean the report is true. I do not know, nor do I believe you know, not being onmiscient, whether the report is true or not. It's possible that McVay had the gall to fabricate these e-mails, but I am not alleging that he did: As you see, he is presuming most of this rather than asking … there is no space shortage, except insofar as [____] wants to deny him space. Anyway, the core point, I obviously am not going to be able to find a sponsor for Sternberg, yet his official status is as a research associate for the next three years. If you don’t want to make a martyr of him, I'll sponsor him. As he hasn’t (yet) been discovered to have done anything wrong, particularly compared to his peers, the sole reason to terminate his appt. seems to be that the host unit has suddenly changed its mind. If that’s OK w NMNH, let me know and I'll send him a letters stating so. However, as you decided originally, the political downside of that is costly. Outside of pique, [____]’s main legitimate concern seems to be a fear of guilt by association. In any case [____] isn’t going to be shut up about this until he wins (i.e. banishes Sternberg) or gets told to. I'm not going to get bit to death by daily emails. The access and key issues are trivial and can be fixed, if out of line. The only grounds I see is [____]’s lack of support. If that isn’t sufficient, then I basically have to tell [____] (again) to shut up (which I am willing to do). http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1488 Yopienso (talk) 09:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Yopienso I find you about as "funny" as a racist joke. I don't give a rat's arse what you call it. It is "butchering", 'quoting out of context' and 'contextomy'. And as such it is misrepresentation. It turned a well-substantiated argument into a bunch of context-less accusations. Given you're unable to find the (slightly changed) link for yourself, here it is: http://www.souder.house.gov/_files/AppendixtoReportIntoleranceandthePoliticizationofScienceattheSmithsonian.pdf -- it seems somebody in the last year or so replaced a tilde (~) with an underscore (_) in the directory structure. "Please keep in mind" that I expect anybody intending to be taken in any way seriously on the topic of the Sternberg peer review controversy to at least have read that article. I alluded to the issues, briefly, in #A good article about Sternberg above, but I did not see any need to regurgitate large chunks of that article. You accepted that the letter was from an extremist source when you wrote: "I realize an extremist source published the letter..." Therefore whether the letter is "genuine" or "a hoax", WP:RS#Extremist and fringe sources applies. I am not claiming that the email is forged, merely misrepresented (which is one of the main reasons not to trust reporting in extremist sources). The email that you quote, particularly taken in context of the email it is in reply to, is not suggesting sanctions against Sternberg, but the downside consequences of the previously suggested sanctions. Such discussions are not evidence of persecution, particularly as (AFAIK) no restrictions were placed upon Sternberg that were not both (i) part of implementation of wider SI policy & (ii) imposed even-handedly across all RAs. It should be noted that Sternberg had effectively been operating without any SI oversight since the death of his original sponsor, and that this, combined with the reason for his coming to their attention, caused some not unreasonable consternation within the SI. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Remedial English Are comments made over a year ago part of a "recent discussion section"? No! Therefore these comments are irrelevant to Northfox's actual accusation. Did I make a thorough examination of what I said over a year ago (but had long since forgotten) in originally rebutting an accusation against my comments in a "recent discussion section"? No I didn't -- nor should I be expected to! Is the claim that "However, unlike Sternberg, McVay, Bloch & Souder, there is no evidence that she's lied, misrepresented or betrayed trust placed in her" calling Sternberg specifically a "liar"? No! It is leaving highly ambiguous which of them is guilty of which of which malfeasance. Does this amount to "repeatedly called Sternberg a liar in a recent discussion section"? No it does not. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC) WP:RS#Non-article space WP:RS#Non-article space states: Talk pages Talk pages are used to make decisions about article contents. Contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related or useful to making article content choices should be deleted, and even permanently removed ("oversighted") if especially problematic (telephone number, libel, etc). New material should generally be discussed in order to arrive at a consensus concerning relevance, availability of sources, and reliability of sources. Repeated questionable claims with biographies of living persons issues not based on new evidence can generally be immediately deleted with a reference to where in the archive the prior consensus was reached. I would point out that the claims I have made (i) have sources (cited in Sternberg peer review controversy) & (ii) are "related or useful to making article content choices", as they pertain to the reliability (and thus suitability for inclusion in the article) of Sternberg, the OSC and Scott as sources. I would therefore suggest that Northfox's accusation, even if it was modified to pertain to all my comments on this page, not merely those in a "recent discussion section", has no basis under that policy. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

POV and notable

The article only focuses on one event. If this is all he is known for perhaps this article should be deleted and an article on the controvesy written, if there is not one already.99.27.204.61 (talk) 13:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

There is an article on the controversy: Sternberg peer review controversy. This article contains a WP:SUMMARY of that article, plus biographical information. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I still think that having about half of this article being about the controversy is not what's supposed to be happening here. Could that section be trimmed down a bit, it there is already another article on the topic? 99.27.204.61 (talk) 04:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Summarising a closely-related three-section article as a three-paragraph section doesn't seem unreasonable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hrafn again. You are really on every single ID, creation, evolution article pushing your POV, are't you?--Tembew (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Klinghoffer

I've reverted the additions of Buckles75 as they 1) repeat Sternberg's own rhetoric on the issue as a fact, 2) are supported only by a source [4], David Klinghoffer, who, like Sternberg, is affiliated with the Discovery Institute and is himself an outspoken promoter of ID and thus not a reliable, neutral source on the topic. Odd nature (talk) 20:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I recently met Dr. Sternberg, and he made it very clear that he is NOT a proponent of Intelligent Design, although he believed that certain problems with Neo-Darwinist evolutionary theory need to be debated and possibly undergo revision. His scientific opinion is that are several unsettled issues within evolutionary biology (mutation rates and genetic drift, no name a few) that require further study and more debate. He does NOT personally believe that Intelligent Design has yet provided the best possible explanation for the origin of life and evolution, but he DOES believe that ID deserves to be part of the discussion so long as ID theorists follow widely-used scientific methodology and reasoning. By calling Dr. Sternberg an "intelligent design proponent," you are grossly misrepresenting his personal scientific opinion. I am also updating the citations for my original edit, citing a Washington Post article that clearly addresses Dr. Sternberg's personal beliefs. In my opinion, Odd Nature, you are clearly biased against Dr. Sternberg in that YOU provided no proof whatsoever for claiming Dr. Sternberg is an "intelligent design proponent." Nevertheless, you were quick to denounce my attempt to set the record straight in a neutral manner by criticizing my original citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckles75 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I would tend to agree with Buckles75 on this one. If you have a credible source that states that Sternberg is an Intelligent Design proponent then produce it. As it sits, the preponderance of the evidence rests with Buckles75. If there is a quote from Sternberg that states "I am not an ID proponent," which I believe there is, and there is another source that confirms this, then that should be it. The point should be included in the article. If there are some who believe that he is an ID proponent, then I would think that the bar of proof to should be set pretty high for someone who wants to assert that opinion. Like say a quote from Sternberg, "I know that in public I say that I am not an ID proponent, but in reality I am." So, Odd nature, I would suggest you revert Buckles75's edit back, unless you can justify your actions with some research that shows your position is true. Quoting other's opinions on this matter will not cut it in my humble opinion. Mathezar (talk) 12:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Peer review controversy

I take exception with the way the peer review section is written. It states that BSW position states that Sternberg did not follow the standard peer review process when he published the Meyer paper. While I do not dispute that this is the current position of the BSW, I would like to present an undisputed quote from Dr. McDiarmid (president of the BSW) from the Souder Staff Report. http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1489

I have seen the review file and comments from 3 reviewers on the Meyer paper. All three with some differences among the comments recommended or suggested publication. I was surprised but concluded that there was not inappropriate behavior vs a vis [sic] the review process.

This quote clearly shows that McDiarmid believed at one point that Sternberg had properly followed the peer review process. This is contrary to what is written in the article and I believe it should be corrected.

So we have two positions from the BSW: 1) Sternberg did not circumvent the peer review process, and then later 2) Sternberg did circumvent the peer review process. Both statements cannot be true, one of them is a lie. I would suggest including the McDiarmid quote and let your readers decide.

I know that the source for this quote will be called into question by the editors of this article. So let me save you some time. I realized that the report is biased, however, that bias cannot be attributed to a direct quote for no reason. If I was using the findings or conclusions of the report that would be another matter entirely. However, I am just using a direct quote from the report. If the direct quote was a fabrication or false, someone, somewhere would have reported it as such. So please do not attack this suggestion unless you can prove that the Souder commission manufactured the quote for their own political purposes. Mathezar (talk) 13:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen anyone respond to this yet. If I don't hear anything soon I would like to remove the quotation from the introduction, and move it to the peer review controversy section. And then include the above mentioned quote by McDiarmid as well, to show the BSW (or at least one of its members) change of position on this matter. Mathezar (talk) 13:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Your assertions are original research, without any backing from reliable sources. The report is a questionable primary source as a partisan political document not endorsed by Congress, and your source is the thoroughly unreliable Disco tute. Not acceptable sources for this article. So, go find reliable mainstream sources which discuss this assertion you're promoting, so that it can be put into proper context as required by undue weight and pseudoscience policies, dave souza, talk 12:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I have checked the quote as best I could and have not found anyone saying that it is false. If you are suggesting that a congressional committee can manufacture a quote from a scientist and get away with it you are not dealing in the realms of reality. The quote is accurate and should be included in the article. If you have any evidence that it is a falsehood show me what you have. Ad hominem attacks directed at any organization that dares to question darwinism are logical fallacies and beneath you Dave. Mathezar (talk) 16:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Dave, Ask and ye shall receive. Here is a link to the complete Souder report. The quote in question is on page 24. http://www.docstoc.com/docs/5789134/Intolerance-and-the-Politicization-of-Science-at-the-Smithsonian Oh, and did I happen to mention that this link is NOT from the kabal of inbred morons and outright liars at the Discovery Institute? God bless, Mathezar (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

"So we have two positions from the BSW" We do? The quote, which lacks context, does not indicate that it is the official position of the society, nor does it suggest that McDiarmid is speaking in an official capacity. Given its dubious provenance, it's hard to make anything of the Souder report. Guettarda (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Most definitely we should not use the Souder report to suggest that McDiarmid was duplicitous. Guettarda (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Guettarda, Facinating! Where is your evidence that the McDiarmid quote is taken out of context and is a misrepresentation of what he said. May I remind you that McDiarmid was a president of the BSW, and whether it was an official statement, I would say that a quote from the president of the BSW should carry some weight. This is not to say that the current position is inaccurate, but that they did seem to change courses as this controversy unfolded. Mathezar (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I have not said that the quote was "taken out of context", but rather that it lacked context, which makes it impossible to evaluate. And nowhere did I say it was a misrepresentation. Given the lack of context, again, it is impossible to ascertain the capacity in which McDiarmid was speaking. As for your assertion that "they did seem to change courses as this controversy unfolded" - how do you come to that conclusion? Have you looked at the dates?

Regardless, we do not have "two positions from the BSW". Guettarda (talk) 18:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

"the quote...lacked context, which makes it impossible to evaluate." What does that even mean!?! It is a direct quote that has not been questioned or challenged by ANY reliable source. Being an editor on Wikipedia does not give you the right to pick and choose which sourced information can be used. Why are we attacking this quote at all? It is from a reliable source, and is undisputed. If it is misleading, it seems that with the partisan nature of Wash DC, someone somewhere would have reported it as such. As it stands there is NO credible evidence that anyone has produced that the quote is false. What's the big deal? Including the quote will just add to the breath of this article and give readers a better picture of what happened.

As to the dates, the citation for the statement from the BSW in this article does not have a date printed, it may have been issued before or after the quote from McDiarmid that I think should be included. (After some research I believe that the BSW position came before the McDiarmid quote, but it really doesn't matter much either way in my opinion) Mathezar (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

"dubious provenance"!?! Really! My quote is cited from the Souder report as being in an email sent from McDiarmid to Dr. Hans Sues on Jan 28th, 2005 at 2:25 PM. I can't tell from the BSW link that is quoted in the article that it is actually from the BSW at all. There is no mention on the referenced page when the statement was made, and no way to tell who posted it there. So what's the deal? Why is the original quote not questioned? Mathezar (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

<ri>Please stay on topic.

• Please explain why you think that we have "two positions from the BSW". You need a source that supports that assertion.
• "Lack of context" means that the sentence is quoted without a broader context. The remainder of the email isn't included. That makes it unwise to extrapolate too much from the quote.
• "Being an editor on Wikipedia does not give you the right to pick and choose which sourced information can be used" - that's not the issue here. You're trying to use it to say something that we can't infer from this quote.
• "It is from a reliable source, and is undisputed." No, it's from a source that has been proven to be unreliable.
• "the citation for the statement from the BSW in this article does not have a date printed, it may have been issued before or after the quote from McDiarmid that I think should be included" - It pre-dates the reported date for the email.
• Yep - an unpublished email, cited in a report report issued by a politician made to look like a committee report, thus meant to mislead. And the accuracy of which has been questioned.

And please address the first point, first, since without that, the rest of the discussion is moot. Guettarda (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Please explain why you think that we have "two positions from the BSW". You need a source that supports that assertion.

I do have a source, the McDiarmid quote. You can attack the FINDINGS of the report, that is not what I am using that for. But if you want to attack the quote, give me something that deals directly with the quote in question that calls it into question. Mathezar (talk) 06:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The source quotes McDiarmid. It doesn't say anything about the position of ther BSW. Guettarda (talk) 04:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

"Lack of context" means that the sentence is quoted without a broader context. The remainder of the email isn't included. That makes it unwise to extrapolate too much from the quote.

I am not extrapolating anything. You seem to believe that the whole email will contain something that will change what the quote is saying not me. Mathezar (talk) 06:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope. I'm saying that I don't know what's in the rest of the email. And neither do you. Sans context, it's impossible to say with any certainty what McDiarmid means. Guettarda (talk) 04:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Guettarda, you have already shot yourself in the foot on the inclusion of this quote. See my comment to your last point. Mathezar (talk) 06:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Shot myself in the foot? Not really - the entire email demonstrates my point pretty well. McDiarmid clearly doesn't say what you were trying to claim he said. Guettarda (talk) 14:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

"Being an editor on Wikipedia does not give you the right to pick and choose which sourced information can be used" - that's not the issue here. You're trying to use it to say something that we can't infer from this quote.

I am not saying that McDiarmid (President of BSW) is making an official statement in the email, merely that he is saying one thing in private emails and then agreeing to have something different published in public. Which brings me to the point of the verifiability of the original quote. The body of the article cites the website http://www.biolsocwash.org , which apparently no longer exists. I have provided two VERIFIABLE sources for my quote. So really I guess I could say that there is really only reliable quote that should be included, mine. Mathezar (talk) 06:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

"He says one thing in private emails and then agrees to have something else published in public" - if you're going to call McDiarmid hishonest, you need a high quality source that says so. Drawing your own conclusions violates our policy on original research. Making statements about living people falls under out policy on biographies of living people. Please make sure that you are in compliance with both of these policies.

I am not saying that we accuse McDiarmid of being dishonest in the body of the article, I just want the mention that Sternberg didn't follow the peer review process removed from the intro paragraph and the McDiarmid email quote included in the body of the article. Mathezar (talk) 06:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Not accuse, imply. Based on your own novel conclusions, drawn from primary sources. Guettarda (talk) 14:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

"It is from a reliable source, and is undisputed." No, it's from a source that has been proven to be unreliable.

Uh, yes it is. I have made it clear that I am not using the FINDINGS of the report, just the quote. If McDiarmid is misquoted or taken out of context produce something that says that. Your hunches that he may not have really said what the Souder report said he said is not good enough. The burden of proof rests in your lap, unless you want me to remove the dubious quote from the BSW that is currently in the article. Mathezar (talk) 06:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You can't "just use the quotes". You can't drawn novel conclusions based on primary sources. See WP:OR. And, as I said before, since the context of the quote in unavailable, the quote itself is impossible to interpret. As for the BSW statement, it has been attested to by a host of secondary sources, so the reliability of the archive (which is usually accepted, and has been accepted as reliable in lawsuits, iirc) isn't terribly germane. Guettarda (talk) 04:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not saying that we draw novel conclusions, I am in favor of retaining the original (extremely flawed) quote and then including the email quote at let the readers draw their own conclusions. Mathezar (talk) 06:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

"[I]ncluding the email quote at [sic] let the readers draw their own conclusions". If you're going to argue that you're not violating policy, you need to read the policy. Guettarda (talk) 14:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

"the citation for the statement from the BSW in this article does not have a date printed, it may have been issued before or after the quote from McDiarmid that I think should be included" - It pre-dates the reported date for the email.

I agree, that is probably true, but it is not verified. Mathezar (talk) 06:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is verifiable. Sept. 7, 2004, to pick one source. Guettarda (talk) 04:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The NCSE article does not reference any original document except the now closed www.biolsocwash.org site that is in the body of the quote. I will repeat that removing the BSW position is not my intention, but I will push that area if I have to. Wiki Policy states

Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.

The NCSE's purpose for existence is promotional in nature, and it is a website, the quote currently contained in the article does not meet the standards of Wiki policy. Mathezar (talk) 06:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

So now you're accusing the NCSE of falsifying the date on their news post? Wow. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. I trust you will supply a source to support your claim. Guettarda (talk) 14:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep - an unpublished email, cited in a report report issued by a politician made to look like a committee report, thus meant to mislead. And the accuracy of which has been questioned.

I would LOVE it if you could produce a single shred of evidence to support this statement. IMHO it is pure nonsense. Mathezar (talk) 06:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Easily verifiable. For example - "The report prepared by Rep. Souder... was never officially accepted into the Congressional Record."[5] Guettarda (talk) 04:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I just checked the SciAm article you posted to prove that the email quotes contained in it are unreliable and found this...

Notwithstanding the report's conclusions, its appendix contains copies of e-mails and other documents in which Sternberg's superiors and others specifically argued against penalizing him for his ID views.

It seems that SciAm believes that the quotes contained in the Souder report are accurate, which is what I have been saying all along. Thanks for digging this citation up for me and strengthening my point. The inclusion of the Souder quote stands the test of verifiability. The BSW quote currently in the article does not. Mathezar (talk) 06:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

"I just checked the SciAm article you posted to prove that the email quotes contained in it are unreliable" - I made no such claim. Stop misrepresenting me. You claimed that it was "pure nonsense" that the Souder report was the product of a single pol, not of a congressional committee. I provided a supporting reference for my statement. Do you still stand by your statement that my assertion that the Souder report was not produced by a congressional committee is "pure nonsense"? Please stop with all the false claims. Guettarda (talk) 14:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay I dug up the entire text of the email between McDiarmid and Sues. Here is the full text of the email in question...

From: Roy McDiarmid

To: Hans SUES

Date: 1/28/2005 2:25:52 PM

Subject: Re: Request for information

Hans,

I will check and see if I have an electronic copy of your original message. If I don't I suspect that Carole does. I recall that you sent it to her too, possibly first. I am almost sure that I have a hard copy.

I have seen the review file and comments from 3 reviewers on the Meyer paper. All three with some differences among the comments recommended or suggested publication. I was surprised but concluded that there was not inappropriate behavior vs a vis the review process. Whether one would consider the reviews appropriate is another issue and I would be pleased to share my views on that with you if you so desire.

ROY

The link to the email can be found at http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1490 on page 72.

Guettarda, is that enough context for you? I would suggest you consider giving up on this. I don't think you will win, and you may end up getting the unverified quote you like removed from this article in the process. Best regards, Math Mathezar (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for digging up the entire email. And, as I suspected, context changes everything. "Whether one would consider the reviews appropriate is another issue". Simply quoting the first part is misleading.

More to the point, since the issue of whether Sternberg invited any reviews isn't given as a reason for the withdrawal of the paper, the answer seems rather beside the point. Guettarda (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

But you have to admit that it does call into question the statement that "They stated that Sternberg went outside the usual review procedures to allow Meyer's article to be published." is called into question by this quote as well. The question raised in the article isn't what the reviewers said, but that Sternberg didn't have the Meyer paper properly reviewed. The last sentence in the paragraph in question does not address that point. I could include the entire paragraph in question if that would make you feel better.

I take this as meaning that you are willing to discuss the verifiability of the BSW position that is included in the article. Mathezar (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Call it into question? In what way? You've read the statement, right? Guettarda (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

"They stated that Sternberg went outside the usual review procedures to allow Meyer's article to be published"

"I was surprised but concluded that there was not inappropriate behavior vs a vis [sic] the review process."

Are you trying to say that these two statements are mean the same thing? Because I don't think that both statements can be true.

Besides you are changing the subject. We have a statement that meets the Wiki standards for verifiability and your questions about context have been answered. So why are even still debating this? The source I used is used in the Sternberg Peer Review Controversy page to suggest that Sternberg tried to shake down the Smithsonian for $300,000.

With all due respect, I think it is odd that you only seem to be interested in enforcing Wiki policy when it suits you. For someone who is just trying to make an article better, it is hard to understand, and the way that Wiki policy is enforced seems to be quite biased. Mathezar (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying no, you haven't read the statement? Well, then for starters you should read the statement. Guettarda (talk) 20:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

By "the statement," assume you are referring to the BSW position statement, and yes, I have read the statement that is on the archive website (which could have been posted there by anyone). And, no I don't agree that the summary of what it says is accurately represented in this article.

And again you are changing the subject. I am not calling you to remove the flawed reference currently in the article, just merely trying to include a verified quote that says something a little different and let the readers decide for themselves which side they want to believe.

So are you still questioned the verifiability of my quote? Mathezar (talk) 06:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If you've read the statement, then why is the McDiarmid email of any significance? The reasons they gave for the paper's withdrawal don't touch on the issue of whether there were reviews. So why are you wasting time discussing something that's irrelevant? Guettarda (talk) 13:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Guettarda, I'm sorry, I thought mentioning something about the peer review process would be relevant in a section titled "Peer Review Controversy." Mathezar (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"Something", perhaps. This, not. Mostly because this doesn't say what you're trying to make it say. Guettarda (talk) 13:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Your tactics in this debate have been disgraceful. First you say that the source is not reliable. Then you say it lacks context. Now you say that it irrelevant. Which you could have said in your first comment to this post. You win, I'm done! But don't kid yourself, you have done nothing to elevate the level of intellectual honesty in the online joke that is Wikipedia. Mathezar (talk) 13:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

1. It's not a debate. Thinking of it as a debate is unhelpful. This is about improving the article, not scoring points.
2. "First you say that the source is not reliable. Then you say it lacks context. Now you say that it irrelevant" - No, that's simply not true. The first thing I did was to question your assertion that we have "two positions from the BSW". And now, having established that the McDiarmid quote in no way contradicts the BSW statement, I can only conclude that it's irrelevant. (In addition, if you read my initial comment you'll see that after raising this question I go on to point out the lack of context, and then mention the problems with the source. Saying "first I said x, then I said y" not only gets the sequence of sentences wrong, it's also misleading, since it implies that I advanced one argument and then the other. All three points were present in my initial reply to you.)
3. "Which you could have said in your first comment to this post." - No, I couldn't have said that. I hadn't read the BSW statement in years, I didn't know the full context of the McDiarmid email. And most importantly, I am always open to being convinced by new facts or interpretations.
4. "You win, I'm done!" - I'm sorry you see it this way. It's not about winning or losing, it's about improving the article. You would do much better here if you stopped thinking in those terms. Guettarda (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Is Sternberg an ID proponent?

The lede is so carefully crafted, doubtless after considerable discussion, I hate to bring this up, but we have a discrepancy: the lede says Sternberg is not an ID proponent, while the Sternbergdisambiguation page says he is. I suggest his views have, as he puts it, evolved over time. On his own page [[6]] he calls himself an "evolutionary biologist," and traces his personal journey from atheism to ID. Page 10 records that his thinking is now "compatible with intelligent design broadly defined." He does not call himself a creationist.

A problem here is the variety of definitions of "creationism" and "intelligent design." Eugenie Scott equates the two because a textbook was edited to replace "creationism" with "intelligent design." Yet Wm. Dembski, a leading ID proponent, distinguishes between the two while still identifying the designer as the Christian God.

"... intelligent design makes no claims about the origin or duration of the universe, is not committed to flood geology, can accommodate any degree of evolutionary change, does not prejudge how human beings arose and does not specify in advance how a designing intelligence brought the first organisms into being. ..."

So does this article: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/04/melanie_phillips_gets_it_right.html

The "smoking gun" for me is Sternberg's appearance on a recent ID documentary, "Darwin's Dilemma" in which he says, "You can make a strong case for ID based on the Cambrian explosion." W.r.t. genetic codes, he says they are intelligible--we can read them--and, "There was some intelligent, causative agent." He also wrote for ID here: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/04/shoddy_engineering_or_intellig.html

According to this page http://www.rsternberg.net/v2_Structuralism.htm, he subscribes to "process structuralism." How any of this could be sourced and incorporated into this article is a good question. Yopienso (talk) 08:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Notable

This person seems to be notable only for one incident, which already has an article: Sternberg peer review controversy. Is this article really needed? Wolfview (talk) 13:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Useful reference

[7] WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete?

This article appears to be based around a single event. He also fails to meet WP:PROF. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest a WP:BLP1E merge into Sternberg peer review controversy, with this article's 'Biography' section becoming part of a 'Background' section in that article. Who Sternberg is (in terms of affiliations, interests, etc) would seem to be a big part in why the "controversy" happened. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:39, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Ack, I have just discovered that I have a year-old merge proposal on Talk:Sternberg peer review controversy to do just that. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:41, 18 January 2012 (UTC)