Talk:Sternberg peer review controversy

Section Headings Added, Disputed
I added Section headings and regrouped material under those, adding minority references. These were reverted several times without discussion. I have moved the section headings and proposed material here for duscussion to obtain concensus.DLH 20:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Added summary of Sternberg's perspective. Corrected misstatement on societies position regarding peer review and gave a quote of one of the stated reasons. Regrouped material. Added Category:Intelligent design Added quote by Sternberg on the actual peer review process and results with link. DLH 03:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Added summary quote by Sternberg on peer review. DLH 03:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Added headings to clarify the discussion. Reordered & regrouped to clarify. Added contrasting references, links.DLH 17:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

FeloniusMonk Please address concerns in Discussion, rather than bulk revert numerous edits, additions, categories etc. What objection is there toadding categories? What to adding counterbalancing comments from Sternberg? DLH 18:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I've had to revert this. Your regrouping and placements, as well as your new section headings, were obviously POV because they imparted undue weight to Sternberg's viewpoint. Your changes implied a parity between the two opinions, Sternberg's and his employer, the journal's publishers. There isn't. Sternberg's position is only supported by his opinion and interpretations of things like what constitutes proper peer review, etc. Whereas the publisher's position is supported by their own long-standing policies long unchallenged by the greater scientific community. Also, Sternberg's claims in his statement are not particularly credible since none of his allegations have been ultimately upheld by any of the third parties he's turned to.


 * This is a simple matter of the article needing to represent the majority and minority viewpoints in their proper proportion, per WP:NPOV. Sternberg's viewpoint being the minority clearly while the publisher's, speaking as part of the scientific community, is the majority. FeloniousMonk 19:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * NPOV is that BOTH majority and minority viewpoints are presented.

I have tried to add categories to highlight the discussion. I have added statements and further references. I put alot of effort into adding minority view. Just because you advocate majority view does not mean you can censor all minority additions.DLH 19:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Just because you advocate minority view does not mean you can ignore WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:POINT. You need to develop a better understanding of Neutral_point_of_view before you're able to lecture long-term contributors on NPOV here. Edit warring under the guise of "restoring for discussion" is not how it works here. Contested content is removed to the talk page for discussion. Either play by wikipedia's rules or set up an account at creationwiki. FeloniousMonk 19:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ten next time please move the sections you content to the talk page and ask for discussion, rather than just reverting major additions several times without discussion.DLH 20:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Outside Peer reviewed?
The proposed change is to add this subheading and change the section to the following:

Sternberg insists the paper was properly peer reviewed, and rejects the journal's allegations for disavowing the article. Sternberg further claimed to have followed the standard practice for peer review: ". . .Three reviewers responded and were willing to review the paper; all are experts in relevant aspects of evolutionary and molecular biology and hold full-time faculty positions in major research institutions, one at an Ivy League university, another at a major North American public university, a third on a well-known overseas research faculty. There was substantial feedback from reviewers to the author, resulting in significant changes to the paper. The reviewers did not necessarily agree with Dr. Meyer's arguments or his conclusion but all found the paper meritorious and concluded that it warranted publication. . . . four well-qualified biologists with five PhDs in relevant disciplines were of the professional opinion that the paper was worthy of publication. . . ." Critics claim Sternberg's statement directly contradicts those of his former employer, the publisher of the journal, that proper review procedures were not followed resulting in the article's retraction.. Sternberg responds: "Subsequently, after the controversy arose, Dr. Roy McDiarmid, President of the Council of the BSW, reviewed the peer-review file and concluded that all was in order. As Dr. McDiarmid informed me in an email message on August 25th, 2004, 'Finally, I got the [peer] reviews and agree that they are in support of your decision [to publish the article].'"

What is inaccurate about these citations? If you have further references, please add them. DLH 19:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Critics claim the paper was not peer reviewed. A careful examination of statements by the Journal and Sternberg indicate that it received 3 outside peer reviews plus Sternbergs. Sternberg cites the President of the Journal affirming that. The Journal's statement does not dispute that. The ? after the category is to indicate the controversy? What disputeis there over these statements?DLH 19:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You're drawing an unsupported conclusion from a highly tendentious reading of the facts. The article was withdrawn by the publisher. The publiser says the article circumvented established peer review procedures. Meaning that any peer review Sternberg claims it underwent was rejected by the publisher. That's The article was withdrawn by the publisher, and why you're unable to keep your personal POV out of this article. FeloniousMonk 19:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This section explicitly addresses whether external peer reviews were obtained. The president of BSW affirms that. The Next section addresses the "typical practice" issue of Associate Editor vs Editor himself editing it. If you can find any statements that by the Journal or Sternberg to the effect that the three outside peer reviews were not obtained, then please post them as contrary views. Until then, these are cited references with summary statements. I will change the title to "OUTSIDE Peer Review?"DLH 19:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Peer review by buddy-selected cronies is not peer review. The only question here is whether the "peer view" Sternberg claims was performed was valid. The publisher says it wasn't and went so far to retract the paper. That Sternberg claims otherwise and rejects the publishers actions and statement is a non sequitur and a sidenote at most (already in the article), and certainly not a reason for wikipedia's article here to imply that the withdrawn article "may" be peer reviewed, which is what you're arguing for here. FeloniousMonk 19:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The BSW President is cited as affirming that outside reviewers were proper and supported Sternberg's choice to publish. That is referenced to a published source. Careful examination of the Journal's statement shows that it does not dispute this. The Society statement addresses the "typical practice" of assigning to an Assistant reviewer. If you disput that, please point to a reference to support it and add that reference. Wiki policy is to assume good faith and to give references.DLH 20:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * So say's Sternberg. Do you have a credible, neutral citation for that? The only cite you've provided is to his crank site. We need to be circumspect here because so far none, not one, of Sternberg's allegations have held up or produced results, and the withdrawl of the Meyers article from the journal remains in effect, meaning there remain no pro-ID peer reviewed articles published in the scientific press. FeloniousMonk 20:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Your allegation that Sternberg selected "buddy-selected cronies" is a serious charge of professional misconduct. Is that an effort at "assuming good faith"? Sternberg cites the BSW president that the outside reviews were proper. IF you can find a statement from the BSW president disputing that citation, then please add it to show majority/minority positions. The BSW statement does not address the outside peer reviewers. Sternberg has conducted himself as a professional editor upholding the confidentiality of the reviewers. Until those reviewers agree to publish their identities, your allegation needs to be substantiated or withdrawn. Having worked to obtain serious peer review in another field, that is a serious charge that undermines the peer review process by ad hominem attacks if not substantiated. IF you read the BSW statement carefully, it addressed the issue of Sternberg's choosing to edit the paper rather than assign it to an associate editor. It does not address the outside reviewers.DLH 20:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly why his employer had to very publicly say "was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings" and withdraw the paper... Please. Stepping outside the "typical editorial practices" to see a paper published of a fellow traveler that you knew would stand no other chance strikes me as the very definition of professional misconduct. Especially damning when done on your way out the door for good. FeloniousMonk 20:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Statement by the President of Biological Society of Washington:

However, in January 2005 Dr. Roy McDiarmid, President, Biological Society of Washington privately corroborated Sternberg's statement to Dr. Hans Sues (Smithsonian's #2 scientist), House Government Reform Committee Dec. 2006, p24, , 

This is a definitive source with the text published by the House Government Reform committeeDLH 05:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In other words, Mr. McDiarmid's review of the file did not lead him, based on the material he saw, to conclude Mr. Sternberg's use of the process was inappropriate. I am not surprised that Mr. McDiarmid was "surprised" though, given that the three reviewers consisted of non-biologists, one a baraminologist, along with a theologian and a philosopher. Yes, I think I'd be surprised too if I were in his position.  ... Kenosis 05:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Non Sequitor. McDiarmid gives not evidence of who the three reviewers were.
 * Of course not; Sternberg gave the hint himself. One's an Ivy Leaguer (Wells with the PhD from Yale), another's from a major US university (Nelson of the University of Chicago) and a third participates in an international study group (Todd Wodd).  Admittedly it's a non-sequitur as to the allegations of misuse of the peer review process. ... Kenosis 20:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * McDiarmid's opinion, who's only connection to the topic is that he's a creationist fellow-traveler, in neither relevant nor notable. And the Appendix to Intolerance and the Politicization of Science is hardly the "definitive source" you claim. Instead, it is a wholly partisan source, being co-written by none other than the pro-ID Santorum Amendment's Rick Santorum, another ID fellow-traveler. You have yet to produce a single neutral, unaffiliated source that supports Sternberg's claims. FeloniousMonk 06:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * False characterization. "Roy McDiarmid [the President of the BSW and a scientist at the Smithsonian]". Dr. McDiarmid was president of the Biological Society of Washington, and thus the final authority over the Journal and review process in question. His statement thus has the highest authority in the case.DLH 18:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * See: "President Roy McDiarmid" http://www.biolsocwash.org/minutes_2003.html http://www.biolsocwash.org/minutes_2004.html http://www.biolsocwash.org/minutes_2005.html
 * No, the highest authority from the BSW that's written on the matter is the Council of the Biological Society of Washington, and their opinion on Sternberg's actions is clear and in direct conflict with McDiarmid's: Certianly the council took McDiarmid's personal opinion as BSW president into account when they decided to issue their blanket statement condemning Sternberg's actions and withdrawing the article. Also, you continue to ignore the fact of Rick Santorum's role in the national ID campaign and that he's been shown to be less than neutral in his support of Sternberg and ID, so any source given here coming from him will be treated as a partisan source. FeloniousMonk 19:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This cites the actual private email from McDiarmid obtained by Congress. McDiarmid is an authorized person who had access to the confidential review records and is thus an authority on the subject. This compact statement satisfies verification policy from an authoritative source.DLH 19:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * More accurately its a "partisan source" not an defintive source since it was obtained and presented by Santorum and Souder, the two are the most notable ID pushers in the House and their report is the product of their committee, not that of the entire Congress. Misrepresenting sources is not going to result in slanted content getting into the article. FeloniousMonk 19:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * McDiarmid is the definitive source as he as actually reviewed the confidential review records with his responsibility as BSW President. His email was reproduced. The report was a Staff Report to Chairman Mark Souder, not to Senator Santorum. (Congressman Souder and Senator Santorum conducted a joint investigation in 2005.) DLH 23:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sternberg's Paper Reviewed

 * Sternberg's own paper was published in the annals of the NY Academy of Science. With their reputation, they presumably manage their review process. Sternberg refers to separate criticism received.DLH 00:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Publisher vs Editor
If you dispute this section please discuss.DLH 19:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Um, no. That's not how wikipedia works. You've got it exactly backwards. I you want to change long-standing content that enjoys broad consensus, then you need to make your case for it here, not the other way around. FeloniousMonk 19:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That is surprising seeing that there was NO discussion until I added discussion. I do not see how it can have "broad consensus" with no discussion. It may have not been critically reviewed.DLH 19:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Because since most of us are capable of following WP:NPOV and WP:NPOV that there is unwritten consensus. It only gets discussed when someone gets upset that their MPOV isn't being represented. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 20:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * DLH has a point. If there was no discussion, on what grounds can Felonious say there was "braod consensus"?  Call me a WP:V junkie, but that sort of verification is just the kind of thing I like--if only because a number of times I have seen Felonious appeal to a "consensus" but when I requested he provide evidence of said consensus, he refused (e.g.  here).

Proposed section: This addresses the heart of the controversy Between the Journal and Sternberg over Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor. Propose titling this as "Publisher's Review Policies" as an objective statement of the section. Moved Sternberg comments from Outside Review to this section.

Questionable Claim and Citation

 * There is something that bothers me here. The Wikipedia entry says that, "proper review procedures were not followed" but the cited link associated to it only says that "Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process.[emphasis added]"  There is a difference between "typical" and "proper."  Sternberg says, "...I took direct editorial responsibility for the paper. As discussed above, the Council of the BSW had given me, the managing editor, the discretion to decide how a paper was to be reviewed and edited as well as the final decision on whether it would be published."  This seems to suggest that that Sternberg followed proper procedure regarding his decision on how the peer-review process would happen, even if most peer-reviewed articles are not done this way.  I suggest modifying "proper" to "typical" until we have a cited source from the publisher actually contains the "proper" claim (the cited source  doesn't actually claim he violated the publisher's peer-review policy).  --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "Typical" - that it be handled by an associate editor. "Proper" - that it be reviewed at all.  There is no evidence that the paper was actually reviewed (he is unable to produce the "four biologists" or their reviews).  So it's more than "atypical" (not handled by an associate editor) it's improper (not peer reviewed).  Guettarda 20:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the cited source never actually says he violated proper procedure. Sternberg says, "Since systematics and evolutionary theory are among my primary areas of interest and expertise (as mentioned above, I hold two PhDs in different aspects of evolutionary biology), and there was no associate editor with equivalent qualifications, I took direct editorial responsibility for the paper.  As discussed above, the Council of the BSW had given me, the managing editor, the discretion to decide how a paper was to be reviewed and edited as well as the final decision on whether it would be published."  The cited source says this action was not "typical" but it does not say he violated proper procedure.


 * You say, "There is no evidence that the paper was actually reviewed" but why think that it wasn't? There are many scientists skeptical of Darwinian evolution (even if their skepticism is unfounded), and as I mentioned elsewhere ID does some in-house peer review.  Why think he could not find some that were willing to review the paper?  I don't entirely agree with his decision not to release the names of the scientists who reviewed it, but his fear that those four biologists might be persecuted for their behavior does not seem entirely without foundation (consider what happened to him).


 * I did a little checking and found out Sternberg's actions brought some attention from the investigation by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC), an independent federal agency. This is what it had to say,


 * They also assumed that you [Sternberg] violated editorial regulations of the Proceedings because you were the primary editor of the article. These comments were made to and by SI and NMNH managers and were published to several outside organizations. It was later revealed that you complied with all editorial requirements of the Proceedings and that the Meyer article was properly peer reviewed by renowned scientists. As an aside, the information received by OSC does not indicate that any effort was made to recall or correct these comments once the truth was made known. [bolded emphasis mine]


 * You can see for yourself here. What do you make of this?  --Wade A. Tisthammer 14:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "Contrary to typical editorial practices..." It's clear that the Council of the Biological Society of Washington determined that Sternberg stepped outside 'proper' procedure. FeloniousMonk 21:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No it's not clear, because as I said before the cited source never actually says he violated proper procedure. Sternberg says, "Since systematics and evolutionary theory are among my primary areas of interest and expertise (as mentioned above, I hold two PhDs in different aspects of evolutionary biology), and there was no associate editor with equivalent qualifications, I took direct editorial responsibility for the paper.  As discussed above, the Council of the BSW had given me, the managing editor, the discretion to decide how a paper was to be reviewed and edited as well as the final decision on whether it would be published."  The cited source says this action was not "typical" but it does not say he violated proper procedure.


 * I did a little checking and found out Sternberg's actions brought some attention from the investigation by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC), an independent federal agency. This is what it had to say,


 * They also assumed that you [Sternberg] violated editorial regulations of the Proceedings because you were the primary editor of the article. These comments were made to and by SI and NMNH managers and were published to several outside organizations. It was later revealed that you complied with all editorial requirements of the Proceedings and that the Meyer article was properly peer reviewed by renowned scientists. As an aside, the information received by OSC does not indicate that any effort was made to recall or correct these comments once the truth was made known. [bolded emphasis mine]


 * You can see for yourself here. What do you make of this?  --Wade A. Tisthammer 14:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What do I make of that? I think you better find a different source. Um, Wade, you know that David Klinghoffer is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, right? His opinion is no more neutral on the topic than Sternberg's, he often uses his articles to make the case for his ID cronies. If you're going to raise a ruckus here disputing well-sourced content, at least try to find neutral sources to prop-up one side's viewpoint. FeloniousMonk 03:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, David Klinghoffer is a senior fellow at DI, but that is not relevant because he was not the one who authored the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) document that contains the quote I presented above. It was the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, an independent federal agency that said Sternberg "complied with all editorial requirements...and that the Meyer article was properly peer reviewed by renowned scientists."  (Note also what it said about false claims saying otherwise.)  May I ask why you believe anti-ID websites are more neutral than the U.S. Office of Special Counsel?  Or if you do not believe this, in any case why object to including what the OSC said here?  And what about the citation not actually containing the claim "proper review procedures were not followed"?  That the claim is sourced by a citation that does not actually contain the claim is a serious problem and you have thus far ignored it.  The citation says what Sternberg did (handling the entire review process himself and not having an associate editor review it) was not typical, but it does not say he violated proper editorial procedures; and perhaps for good reason considering what the OSC said above.  I'm all for including what the citation said; that the actions he took were not typical.  But saying that "proper review procedures were not followed", attribute this to a source that does not actually contain the claim, and omit what the independent federal agency said on this matter above does not seem appropriate.  --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice dodge. Of course Klinghoffer being a fellow traveler of Sternberg's is relevent Wade, only a fellow partisan would argue it isn't. Just like the author of the OSC letter to Sternberg, as the article details. That the OSC ultimatey rejected Sternberg's claim and why is the ultimate answer to your ceaseless objections, Wade. FeloniousMonk 17:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * How is it relevant given that it is the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) that makes the claim in question? Klinghoffer is a senior fellow at the DI, fine.  But the author of the OSC document is not.


 * Speaking of dodges, I notice that you continue to evade the issue that the citation does not actually contain the claim associated with it. The citation says that what Sternberg did was not typical but it does not say he violated proper editorial procedure.  One can follow the rules in an atypical way (e.g. if I where a funny hat when I study for a test; I still follow the rule of not cheating).  The OSC document says Sternberg complied with all editorial requirements of the journal, and mentions the existence of false statements to the contrary (statements like the one under discussion here).  I simply don't see what basis you have for including the unsourced challenged material.  [Last edited: 21:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)] --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That's because your objection is simply one more instance of your ridiculous hair splitting seeking to descredit a particular viewpoint that casts ID in an unfavorable light. It's the same perspective you've sought to discredit in every ID-related article you visit your history shows. The relevant passage of the Statement from the Council of the Biological Society of Washington is present in the article for readers to decide for themselves:
 * And it's clear that any rational, reasonable reader of the statement that the Council of the Biological Society of Washington felt Sternberg failed to follow procedures, "proper," "typical" or otherwise. You're wasting your time with this objection. The original source is presented and properly cited and described. FeloniousMonk 21:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No it is not, nor is what I am doing hairsplitting. Want proof?  Consider, we have one source that says he did not follow typical procedures (it does not say he followed no procedures), and we have another reputable source that explicitly says he did follow proper procedures.  Note that there is no contradiction between these two claims.  Do you acknowledge this?  (I would like an answer to this question please.)  I agree that what Sternberg did might not have been the usual way to get a paper published.  But did he comply with all editorial requirements?  Apparently so.




 * Rejecting one reputable source out of hand (noting that he followed proper procedure, i.e. "complied with all editorial requirements") and twisting the other (turning “typical” to “proper”) is deceptive at worst, careless writing at best. Why suppress the fact of a reputable source saying that he "complied with all editorial requirements"?  Why change a word (from "typical" to "proper") that drastically changes the meaning of what was actually said--especially when you can find no reputable thesaurus to support your "paraphrase"?  Because it conflicts with your own POV?  --Wade A. Tisthammer 00:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "Why suppress the fact of a reputable source saying that he "complied with all editorial requirements"? " Because it is a partisan source: FeloniousMonk 20:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The OSC is not a partisan organization, it is an independent government agency. Keep in mind I can also cite blogs that accuse anti-creationist sources of "partisan" positions as well .  I see no reason to doubt what the OSC report says considering there is nothing to contradict the claim we're talking about.  --Wade A. Tisthammer 00:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia looks for verifiable information. There is no verification for the "renowned" part of McVay's verbiage. I suppose it could be possible that Sternberg revealed the reviewers' names to OSC, but shy of a successful FOIA request we aren't going to be able to verify any such speculative imagining, nor is there any reason to believe that McVay is someone with a sterling sense of what constitutes scientific renown.


 * As for the "Telic Thoughts" thing, here's how that blog post ends:


 * In the two years following this, has Eugenie Scott ever tried to correct the false rumor she spread about Sternberg, or even apologized to him? Again, there is no evidence to suggest this.


 * Update: It appears that Eugenie Scott did in fact notify someone at the Smithsonian about the statement from BSG a month later, when it was first released. Of course, it would have been better if she hadn't spread the rumor about Sternberg being a YEC to with, but she can't be faulted for not correcting it soon enough.


 * The "Telic Thoughts" folks figured out that they were wrong, eventually. It didn't stop them from spreading a false rumor based on the initial information they had in hand, though. Ironic, isn't it? --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Speaking of verifiable information, there is no reliable source that says Sternberg violated proper peer-review procedures. Nor is there any such source to contradict the OSC letter's claim that Sternberg "complied with all editorial requirements of the Proceedings."  At best we have a citation that says what Sternberg did was not typical.  Yet the unverified claim that he violated proper procedures is in Wikipedia, and the attached citation to this belief does not actually contain the claim in question.  This was my issue in the first place. --Wade A. Tisthammer (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Both passages are covered by the | Statement from the Council of the Biological Society of Washington source. That source is very clear that Sternberg failed to follow the publisher's editorial rules regarding peer review. Odd nature (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The very purpose of the Questionable Claim and Citation section you are responding to is to point out that this very citation is questionable (look at the very top of this section). The Statement From The Council Of The Biological Society Of Washington says what Sternberg did was not typical but it does not say he didn't follow proper peer-reviewed procedure.  This is why the Questionable Claim and Citation section was created in the first place.  --Wade A. Tisthammer (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Something else I found was in the Wikipedia entry was this, "no official findings or conclusions were made by the Office of Special Counsel.." The source cited however was a posted comment on a blog. According to WP:RS, "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking." Notably, the same pro-evolutionary news blog (in a different entry) seems to refer to something called “the OSC opinion.” --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As the article already describes, the OSC letter's author, James McVay, is alleged to have been less than a neutral, honest broker in this matter. Surely you're not suggesting that James McVay's viewpoint, and in turn Sternberg's, be given greater weight than those with the opposing viewpoint (which would include both of Sternberg's former employers, the Council of the Biological Society of Washington and the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History)? If so, why? FeloniousMonk 21:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "is alleged to have been less than a neutral, honest broker" and what reputable source does that come from? An anti-intelligent-design blog?  How is that more netural than an independent federal agency?  And on what grounds is the OSC author not a "neutral, honest broker"?  That a Republican President appointed him?  It's easy to find an online source for virtually any opinion--particularly about biases in controversial topics like these.  --Wade A. Tisthammer 00:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Pandas Thumb is an acceptable source for what is said there. This is a well-established convention. Furthermore, the majority of the Sternberg debate took place on blogs. As evidence of what the participants each have said, it is no less acceptable than a cites to Sternberg's personal website presented in the article. FeloniousMonk 17:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You conveniently ignored that according to WP:RS that posted comments on blogs are not allowed from being used as sources--which is exactly what your citation did. Please be more careful in the future.  --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Panda's Thumb is a reliable source in so far as the normal objections to blogs don't apply to it - 1) everything there is vetted before posting and 2) we know exactly who is making the posts and they all come from respectable universities and similar positions. JoshuaZ 17:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I think Wade is talking about the fact that the section linked to is in the form of a comment, rather than a blog posting. However, this isn't a typical anonymous comment to a blog, but rather a "signed" contribution by a contributing editor to PT.  So in this case it should be as reliable as any other posting by a known/regular contributor to a reputable publication.  Guettarda 18:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, AFAIK WP:RS does not mention that exception you stated. --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * RS is a guideline whicb "is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception" This seems to me to be an obvious example of such a case. JoshuaZ 21:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Not so obvious. It is true, that one could argue that what Guettarda said is "common sense" and it does not matter if WP:RS mentioned it.  But there is a further complication: I also noticed this disclaimer on the upper right side, "The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org."  It's going to be a bit tricky to link that comment or even the article as being official PT material.  [Last edited: 21:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)]--Wade A. Tisthammer 21:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Addendum another fun fact from pandasthumb.org:


 * As a general disclaimer, please understand that the views expressed by each individual poster here at The Panda’s Thumb are their own. Each contributor is solely responsible for the content of their posts and they do not represent the views of the various organizations and businesses they may be affiliated with.


 * Given this disclaimer, I don't think we can count that posted comment on the blog to be a reputable source according to WP:RS--unless we can perhaps show that poster PvM (whoever this person is) is a prominent ID opponent? --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * These baseless objections to every signle detail are getting ridiculous and disruptive. As already described in the article had you bothered to read it PvM is Pim Van Meurs. And yes, Pim Van Meurs is a notable ID critic. FeloniousMonk 21:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Baseless objections Felonious? You said that "Panda's Thumb is a reliable source."  But if the material in question is not Panda's Thumb viewpoint, that's not relevant?  You have pretty blatently ignored WP:RS to suit your own POV here (given what it says about blogs).  I suspect you are also ignoring WP:NPOV.  Please provide me with evidence that Pim Van Meurs is a prominent ID opponent.  What anti-ID books has she published, for instance?  --Wade A. Tisthammer 00:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a pretty standard disclaimer - many publications say "other than what we explicitly call editorials, this isn't necessarily our opinion". That isn't the same as saying "we will publish any junk that crosses our doorstep".  As for PT being a "reliable source" - it's a reliable source of the authorship, etc.  It's safe to say that van Meurs said what they say he said.  And since the article says "van Meurs says..." the citation is more than adequate.  Guettarda 22:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That depends whether van Meurs is a prominent adherent (confer WP:NPOV). Thus, the mere fact that we can accurately ascertain the authorship via reliable, "reputable" means is not sufficient grounds for being a suitable viewpoint in Wikipedia.  And thus one cannot just cite a blog enty as a "reliable source" and claim it as a suitable viewpoint to include in Wikipedia.  --Wade A. Tisthammer 00:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There's something else that bothers me too about the unverified claim of the OSC not having any official findings or conclusions in this matter. It does not seem very plausible that the OSC would investigate a registered complaint, amass numerous facts from the investigation, and then decide not to file any of the findings in a report.  Surely they keep records of the findings of such investigations?  Perhaps the objection is that the OSC did investigate it but there is no report that is "official."  But given that the OSC would keep records of the findings of such official investigations, why would these records of official investigations's findings not be official?  It certainly does not seem very plausible that this would be the case here. --Wade A. Tisthammer (talk) 00:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: I have just learned there are other sources confirming the article was indeed peer-reviewed, including at least one source hostile to intelligent design theory. For example, the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry concedes "It was the first time the intelligent design movement has published in a peer reviewed biology journal." One cannot dismiss this source as biased towards intelligent design. Same thing with another hostile source referring to the article as "a peer-reviewed article in The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington." The Washington Post notes that the Sternberg "mailed Meyer's article to three scientists for a peer review." I think all this in conjunction with what the what what was revealed by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel seems to suggest it was indeed peer-reviewed, particularly since the cited source supposedly saying it wasn't properly peer-reviewed (The Statement From The Council Of The Biological Society Of Washington says what Sternberg did was not typical but does not say he did not follow proper peer-reviewed procedure. --Wade A. Tisthammer (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The first one says "peer reviewed journal" - that's not in doubt. It was published, it was in a journal that was peer reviewed. But it was withdrawn by the journal because proper procedures weren't followed and it wasn't in the scope of the journal. And no, the journal board has clearly said that what Sternberg did wasn't just different it was improper. Guettarda (talk) 15:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Granted, the first one isn't that strong, but what about the other sources that made stronger claims? Like the second source referring to it as "a peer-reviewed article in The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington"?  What of the Washington Post noting that the Sternberg "mailed Meyer's article to three scientists for a peer review"?  And what is your source that the journal board has clearly said it was improper (as opposed to saying what he did was not typical)?  --Wade A. Tisthammer (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see an issue here. Given the issues with your interpretation and representation of the sources in your "Addendum" comment and your long history of pro-ID editing of this topic, I'm not inclined to think there's any "there" there. Odd nature (talk) 00:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How then do you account for the evidence that there is something there? Consider:
 * We have multiple verifiable sources that say Sternberg conducted peer-review for the article in question (including the OSC, an independent federal agency; and the Washington Post), with the OSC saying Sternberg "complied with all editorial requirements of the Proceedings and that the Meyer article was properly peer reviewed."
 * We have no verifiable sources contradicting the claims mentioned in #1 (note for example that I asked Guettarda for a source on what "the journal board has clearly said," and that person declined to give one).
 * We have no reliable sources saying that Sternberg violated proper peer-reviewed procedure (though we have one that says what Sternberg did was not typical).
 * Neither you nor Guettarda addressed this; indeed the above evidence has largely been ignored. --Wade A. Tisthammer (talk) 04:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Publisher's Review Policies
On 7 September, the publisher of the journal, the Council of the Biological Society of Washington, released a statement repudiating the article: "The paper by Stephen C. Meyer, 'The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories,' in vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history. " The same statement vowed that proper review procedures would be followed in the future and endorsed a resolution published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which claims that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting intelligent design. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/02/title_4.html

As managing editor, Sternberg states he chose to administer the review himself as the most qualified editor in his opinion (having two PhD's in evolutionary biology), rather than involving an associate editor. He claimed to have also checked with a Council member. , DLH 20:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Critics vs Supporters
In a review of the article Alan Gishlick, Nick Matzke, and Wesley R. Elsberry claimed it contained poor scholarship, that it failed to cite and specifically rebut the actual data supporting evolution, and "constructed a rhetorical edifice out of omission of relevant facts, selective quoting, bad analogies, knocking down straw men, and tendentious interpretations." Further examination of the article revealed that it was substantially similar to previously published articles. Supporters counter the arguments, claiming ad hominem attacks. Setting the Record Straight on Sternberg

Propose grouping material in the following section, including Sternberg's statement on his own position.

Structuralism vs Barminology
Sternberg describes himself as a process structuralist ahistorical, systems-oriented, and non-evolutionary (not anti-evolutionary). Dr. Todd Charles Wood of the Baraminology Study Group describe's Sternberg's skepticism about young earth creationism, but willingness to critique it. Critics of Meyer's paper believe that Sternberg himself was biased in the matter. In 2002, Sternberg presented a lecture on intelligent design at a conference closed to all but intelligent design advocates. Sternberg is also a member of the editorial board of the Baraminology Study Group, an organization with a creationist agenda. These critiques can be considered ad hominem attacks by association. The Baraminology Study Group's official position is that Sternberg is not a creationist and acts primarily as a skeptical reviewer. DLH 20:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "These critiques can be considered ad hominem attacks by association." That's spoon-feeding the reader a particular POV while retroactively trying to poison the well. Even presenting it as an attributed quote is questionable, since it adds nothing but a peripheral viewpoint to narrowly focused article. Whatever terms Sternberg describes himself are beside the point, which is that he's a ID proponent and so had a dog in the race when he decided to step outside the typical editorial practices to see a paper of a fellow traveler published that he knew would stand no chance otherwise. "Sternberg describes himself as a process structuralist ahistorical, systems-oriented, and non-evolutionary (not anti-evolutionary)" is a complete non sequitur here. FeloniousMonk 21:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Propose grouping material on the distrimination issues at Smithsonian Institute in the following section:

Descrimination Charges
As part of a subsequent labor claim, Sternberg claims that he was "targeted for retaliation and harassment" and cites a letter by the United States Office of Special Counsel as supporting his version of events. Pim Van Meurs and other critics have called into question this claim, asserting that the Office of Special Counsel lacked jurisdiction over the matter, that the Smithsonian was never given a chance to respond, and that no official findings or conclusions were made by the Office of Special Counsel.

In August, 2005 the Office of Special Counsel dropped Sternberg's religious discrimination complaint against the Smithsonian Institution. It was determined that as an unpaid research associate at the Smithsonian, Sternberg was not actually an employee, and thus the Office of Special Counsel had no jurisdiction.

Critics have suggested that the Office of Special Counsel itself was biased in its initial handling of the matter, given the links between the religious right and the Republican Party, with George W. Bush appointee James McVay authoring its opinion. DLH 20:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Mark Souder was reelected in 2006 and is not a "lame duck". The Drug Policy Subcommittee has oversight responsibility over the Smithsonian institute. This was a Staff Report, NOT by Souder or Santorum. Sauder & Santorum conducted a joint investigation in 2005. The report addresses discrimination charges raised by Sternberg & the Office of Special Counsel.DLH 23:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Corrections

Added following section

Swamping the talk page
Apparently DLH thinks established contributors here have nothing better to do, like actually contributing to the encyclopedia, than to respond to a laundry list of objections and proposals. Most of which are tendentious; twisting the facts to present the possibility that a pro-ID was peer reviewed (never mind that saying something was peer reviewed implies that it was published).

Considering this method, endorsed by 9 out of 10 trolls and pov pushers at other ID related articles, I'm inclined to move any discussion of additional issues to a subpage to minimize the disruption of this page. Any thought or comments from other long term contributors? FeloniousMonk 20:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There had been NO discussion at all until I initiated this page noting my changes. After several reverts of major editing efforts I moved the sections here for discussion. Please address. I'll come back after several days.DLH 20:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's because the article is accurate, well-supported. It's only when an ID proponent showed up trying to spin the facts to imply that there was a properly peer reviewed ID article when there wasn't that discussion became necessary. The fact remains there is no properly peer reviewed ID article in the scientific press, and all personal objections and statements of all of this movement's Sternbergs do not change that fact. Unless you have some actual new, credible and neutral evidence for us to consider here, there's very little here to discuss. You've brought us nothing new. FeloniousMonk 20:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

DLH's proposed changes to content & structure
Here is DLH's proposed article structure and section titles:


 * 1) Meyer's Paper Published/Withdrawn
 * 2) Outside Peer reviewed?
 * 3) Publisher vs Editor
 * 4) Critics vs Supporters
 * 5) Structuralism vs Barminology
 * 6) Descrimination Charges
 * 7) Notes and references

There are NPOV issues with his section titles. They violate WP:NPOV by imparting undue weight to Sternberg's viewpoint, placing it on par with that of his employer, when it isn't. DLH's choice of verbiage here couchs the controversy in terms favorable to Sternberg and the ID crowd as well.

So, starting with the section Meyer's Paper Published/Withdrawn an obvious issue is that DLH uses rhetoric like "Following a firestorm of protest" then in the next section Outside Peer reviewed? jumps right into Sternberg's rebuttal of his employer's withdrawl of the article before even allowing the reader to see the publishers statement Sternberg is rebutting! DLH also wrongly implies in the section title "Outside Peer reviewed?" that there may indeed be a properly peer reviewed ID paper; a specific goal of the ID movement since its inception. The impetus for the controversy this article describes is that there are none, so I see no reason to help them by implying that there are here. Next, in Publisher vs Editor DLH finally presents the publishers statement that that Sternberg rejects; getting the order backward.

In the Critics vs Supporters section DLH favors Sternberg supporters by making a link to their writings an actual spelled out part of the content, "Setting the Record Straight on Sternberg", not a footnote or external link as he does for critics. In Structuralism vs Barminology DLH's use of an editorial aside, "These critiques can be considered ad hominem attacks by association," spoon-feeds the reader a particular POV while retroactively poisoning the well. It adds nothing but a peripheral viewpoint to narrowly focused article. "Sternberg describes himself as a process structuralist ahistorical, systems-oriented, and non-evolutionary (not anti-evolutionary)" is a complete non sequitur and beside the point. The point is that Sternberg is a ID proponent and so had a dog in the race when he decided to step outside the typical editorial practices to see a paper of a fellow traveler published that he knew would stand no chance otherwise.

Descrimination Charges, aside from misspelling discrimination, isn't so bad since DLH more or less used the existing content. Notes and references balance problems arise when DLH favors pro-Sternberg cites with full descriptions instead of the conventional footnote style cites I've seen him do elsewhere. That covers my initial objections quickly looking over DLH's proposals. FeloniousMonk 22:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Smithsonian controversy (RfC)
OK. This is the sentence with which I take issue:


 * Nick Matzke, Jason Rosenhouse and other critics have commented that the Office of Special Counsel itself appears biased in its initial handling of the matter, given the links between the religious right and the Republican Party, with George W. Bush appointee James McVey authoring its opinion.

Here are the problems with the sentence as it currently reads:


 * the "comment" about the bias is parroted verbatim in both referenced sites
 * the "links" between the religious right and the Republican Party are (if you happen to believe that little fairy tale) not relevant
 * the fact that McVey was appointed by Bush is only peripherally relevant
 * the idea that the OSC's opinion was biased is very much an allegation (hint: saying that it is raining outside is a comment; accusing someone of shirking responsibility, misusing his position, abusing power and/or breaking the law is in fact an allegation)

Here are the problems with the talkreason page that is used for the primary support:


 * it completely ignores that O'Reilly in fact had the basic facts correct (he may have been selective, but then isn't everybody), what Rosenhouse argues as "central facts" are really just details
 * Rosenhouse clearly does not know what facism is
 * He finishes up with a nice ad hominem attack on O'Reilly which really casts into doubt the rest of what he says

Given the above, I have restated the sentence.

Here is the updated version:


 * Nick Matzke and Jason Rosenhouse have alleged that the Office of Special Counsel itself appears biased in its initial handling of the matter, since the opinion of the Office of Special Counsel was authored by George W. Bush appointee James McVey.

This properly conveys that stating McVey was involved in wrong doing is in fact an allegation and cuts out the nonsense about the links between the religious right and the Republicans. El Cubano 23:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not an imprvement - "alleged" is a word to avoid. "Comment" is far better. Limiting it to Matzke and Rosenhouse minimises the position - they weren't the only people making the point, they were the two quoted. The issue of the link between the religious right and the Republican party is very relevant. The fact that McVey is a Bush appointee is relevant, given the role of other unqualified Bush appointees in attacking science. They didn't comment that the opinion is biased, but rather, that it appeared biased. Guettarda 03:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The original sentence accurately reflects the comments made. El Cubano doesn't seem to get that as editors here it is not within our purview per to make judgements based on whether a notable commentor uses or misuse rhetoric: he needs to read WP:ATT. I think his change to the article whitewashes the comments and your reasoning for doing so given here is weak, and he appears to be grasping at straws in an attempt to bowdlerize criticisms. I've reverted it for being weasely, inaccurate, and creating an issue of undue weight. FeloniousMonk 03:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That's not much of an explanation other than "He's wrong!" Care to be more specific? El Cubano 03:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * How not? I addressed every one of your objections.  Guettarda 03:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * My bad. I only saw Felonious' comment and missed yours. El Cubano 03:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, "word to avoid" does not mean "word to never use". In this case, allege is the proper word.  A comment is a remark.  An allegation is an assertion without proof.  While what he said is a comment, it is also an allegation.  In fact, the word allege is a more precise description of what he said.  I can live with the "others", though I'd like to see more links.  Giving two names and then adding others when of the two named, one just copied verbatim or quoted from the other is not really accurate.  The only relevance of the link between the religious right and the Republican party is that no such link exists, except in the fantasies of those looking for a conspiracy.  In fact, I did leave in the part about McVey being a Bush appointee, precisely because I know that it is the view to which the critics hold that Bush doesn't do a good job of choosing appointees who agree with them.  Whether they said that it is biased or appeared bias does not change that the statement has no basis in fact and is an assertion made without proof-and hence an allegation.  By using comment in place of the more correct allege, it appears that you are the one trying to whitewash.  So, can we get to a version of this sentence that is in fact neutral? El Cubano 03:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "Allege" is misused when it is used to imply a lack of credibility in the claim...which is just what you did here, attacked Rosenhouse's credibility. In addition they have no alleged that the OSC "appears biased", they said so.  This is different from saying that the OSC was biased.  For that "alleged" might be a better word than "commented", although still not good from the "words to avoid" perspective.  Even if "allege" wasn't a word to avoid, it would still be totally inaccurate here.
 * "The only relevance of the link between the religious right and the Republican party is that no such link exists, except in the fantasies of those looking for a conspiracy." That's a ridiculous statement.  Are you calling David Kuo a "fantasi[iser] ... looking for a conspiracy"?  James Dobson?  Karl Rove?
 * "So, can we get to a version of this sentence that is in fact neutral?" Sure.  All you have to do is stop inserting POV into the sentence and it should be fine.  Guettarda 05:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * But the claim is not credible. That is like saying Michael appears to have molested children instead of Michael Jackson has molested children.  Saying that something appears to be, is at the very least an implication that it is.  So, I ask, what is their evidence the OSC was biased?  That the opinion was written by a Bush appointee?  Besides, the fact they claim that the OSC appeared biased, instead of flat out stating that it was, indicates they they themselves know that the claim is at the very least shaky.
 * If the fact that Kuo, Dobson and Rove all know or work for or have worked for Bush indicates a "link" between the religious rights and Republicans then, what does that say about the religious left and the Democrats? I mean, looking at the associations there, the Democrats are far more driven by religious interests than the Republicans.  Of course, it matters not, since the fact the Kuo, Dobson and Rove have connections to Bush has absolutely nothing to do with McVey's appointment.
 * Ditto with the POV from the other side. El Cubano 06:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "But the claim is not credible". For one, the claim is extremely credible.  Look at the report and the analyses.  But more importantly, that's utterly irrelevant.  Your MJ example is a straw man - we are not saying "the OSC is biased", we are saying that R & M said that the OSC appears biased.
 * "the fact they claim that the OSC appeared biased, instead of flat out stating that it was, indicates they they themselves know that the claim is at the very least shaky". Really?  No.  The fact is that there are other possible explanations - the OSC might not be biased, but might be acting under the instruction of someone higher up in government.  The end result would be the same.  The bias is obvious in the report.  The only question is whether the bias is that of the purported author of the report, or was the result to political pressure on the OSC.
 * "[W]hat is their evidence the OSC was biased?" - an analysis on the report. Didn't you read the articles?
 * "If the fact that Kuo, Dobson and Rove all know or work for or have worked for Bush indicates a "link" between the religious rights and Republicans then, what does that say about the religious left and the Democrats?" No, I am talking about statements by Kuo, Dobson and Rove.  You said that allegations of links were "fantasies of those looking for a conspiracy".  Are you calling Kuo, Dobson and Rove "fantasi[isers] ... looking for a conspiracy"?
 * "I mean, looking at the associations there, the Democrats are far more driven by religious interests than the Republicans". Even if this were true, how does that relate to this article?  "Of course, it matters not, since the fact the Kuo, Dobson and Rove have connections to Bush has absolutely nothing to do with McVey's appointment."  Please, read what I wrote.  It was a comment on your "fantasies of those looking for a conspiracy".  All I am asking is whether you consider Kuo, Dobson and Rove "fantasi[isers] ... looking for a conspiracy"?  If not, then what are your grounds for removing the information from the article?  Guettarda 06:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute. I thought that there were others in addition to R & M.  Furthermore, did you not just state that the claim is credible because it is based on an analysis of the report?  If it is based on such sound analysis, why did they not just call it what it is and say that the OSC was in fact biased?  You see, even they knew that it was a stretch.  Their statement does not have a basis in fact and is unsupported.  That makes allegation a much more appropriate and precise word to describe what they said. El Cubano 06:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "Wait a minute. I thought that there were others in addition to R & M." - What does that have to do with anything I said?
 * "[D]id you not just state that the claim is credible because it is based on an analysis of the report? If it is based on such sound analysis, why did they not just call it what it is and say that the OSC was in fact biased?"  Umm...I took a stab at answering that question.  Of course, just like R & M, I can't speak to what someone else's motivation may be.  As I said.
 * "You see, even they knew that it was a stretch." - I'm impressed by your ability to (a) ignore what I said, and (b) comment authoritatively on the motivations of others. (In addition to not reading what I actually said, did you bother to read R or M?)
 * "Their statement does not have a basis in fact and is unsupported." That depends on what you mean by "fact".  If by fact you mean anything like "reasonable conclusions drawn from the data", then I would have to disagree with you.
 * "That makes allegation a much more appropriate and precise word to describe what they said." No.  Read WP:WTA.  Actually try reading it this time.
 * And you seem to have missed my main point. On what basis do you consider Kuo, Dobson and Rove "fantasi[isers] ... looking for a conspiracy"?  Guettarda 07:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't consider Rove, Dobson and Kuo to be looking for conspiracies. I was referring to R & M.  Yes I read them.  If they were so sure there was bias, why not say so?  Why just say that there is the appearance of bias?  The point is that any links between the religious right and the Republican party are not relevant here.  You made my point quite nicely for me what you asked about the Dems and religious left and what it has to do with this article.  As far as the use of the word allege, the WTA article says this:
 * Therefore, there is no neutrality problem with using them. However, there may be a problem of ambiguity—they should only be used where the identity of the alleger is clear.


 * "If they were so sure there was bias, why not say so? If they were so sure there was bias, why not say so?"  Since I already answered this question, and then said "I already answered this question", there's no point in saying "I already answered this question" yet again.  So could you please explain what you unacceptable about my initial explanation?
 * "The point is that any links between the religious right and the Republican party are not relevant here." No, this is a new point.  You said there were no such links, except in the minds of "fantasi[isers] ... looking for a conspiracy".  On what basis do you believe that this is irrelevant?  The fact is that Republican politicians have made repeated attacks on science, at the behest of the religios right.  This is one of these attacks.  So why is it irrelevant?
 * Regarding WP:WTA - like all policy dosuments, you need to read it as a whole, not cherry pick quotes out of context. But what is important here is statement that "These all share the theme of explicitly making it clear that a given statement is not necessarily factual".  Since the statement is one that they actually made, using the word "alleged" is inaccurate.  Describing what they said as "alleged" is POV.  It says to the reader "this isn't true".  That is not what we do here.  We report what was said.  We report what others say about what was said.  We don't insert editorial comments sayig "obviously, they are wrong".
 * It isn't acceptable for you to insert "alleged" because you doubt their conclusions. That isn't how Wikipedia works.  It doesn't matter if you don't believe Rosenhouse.  You aren't entitled to stick words like "alleged" in because you don't agree with his conclusion.  That's just how Wikipedia works.  Guettarda 07:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Based on the comment of another editor (Seraphimblade), I am considering making a RfC about this. El Cubano 05:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I came here from the RfC. Guettarda is correct in summarizing WP:WTA in regards to 'allege'. In this case, the word "commented" is more neutral and the better choice than "alleged". Deleting the part of the sentence about the religious right and the Republican party also is not merited, because the cited sources use this as part of the basis of their claims. I believe the current version is fine and the proposed changes on the whole are not helpful. Hope this helps. I'd be glad to address more specifics if you still have concerns.-Andrew c 15:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What's up with the edit warring El Cubano? 151.151.21.103 18:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed move: Sternberg/Smithsonian Affair
While there may be a peer-review controversy at science blogs (TalkOrigns, Sternberg's own apologetics on his website, Panda's Thumb, etc.), this is a tempest in a teapot, and hardly notable (if at all), if that is all there is. The bigger controversies (reported to those outside the world of biology) is the Sternberg/Smithsonian controversy, according to the references I have read. I have not yet read the more dubious refererences (e.g., Science Blogs) on this article's page, but from the references I have read, the official controversy is:

1. The controversy began when, according to the Journal's publisher (see statement), Sternberg did not include an associate editor in the peer-review process, as is "typical." This is according to the statement issued by the Journal's publisher, as well as the Washington Post article and the NPR Radio documentary. 2. Senior Scientists at the Smithsonian machinated and retaliated against Sternberg (even Eugene Scott states that it was legitimate to investigate Sternberg's personal beliefs, and also that "Some [ Senior Smithsonian scientists ] probably did speak intemperately." 3.  Sternberg filed a complaint (See Ted Agres article) with the special council. 4.  The special council, while siding with Sternberg, lacked jurisdiction due to technicality (Sternberg's position as research assistent was an unpaid (by the Smithsonian) position. 5. The staff of U.S. Representative Mark Souder prepared a report for Mark Sounder concurring with the Special Council findings, which concurred with Sternberg's allegations. 6. At least three major media organizations reported this (Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and National Public Radio).

Consequently, I propose that this article be moved to and retitled "Sternberg-Smithsonian Affair," apologetics on Sternberg's website (primary source) and polemics on science blogs (controversies on science blogs are hardly encyclopedic) notwithstanding.


 * Retrieved on 2007-04-29
 * Retrieved on 2007-04-27
 * Retrieved on 2007-04-28
 * Retrieved on 2007-04-27
 * Retrieved on 2007-04-27

I eagerly await arguements for or against this move. ImprobabilityDrive 06:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A very reputable source you've left out of the list is:


 * Intelligent Design and Peer Review from the American Association for the Advancement of Science
 * Also note that in this context certain established science blogs have built up a reputation for giving more accurate representation of scientific viewpoints than mainstream newspapers. .. dave souza, talk 09:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Reputable? I do not normally deem reputable any published article that relies on either USENET, TalkOrigins, Art Bell or Panda's thumb.  The AAAS link you posted does one of them.  The link they provide ends up at the main page (stale link in AAAS article).  Calling Panda's thumb polemic blog entries and their associated comments "scientific", as does the AAAS article you refer to, stretches credibility beyond belief.  I am starting to suspect that the AAAS is funded by George Soros or Michael Moore:)  Also, based on a quick search of google, it looks like the AAAS and Pandas thumb have engage in a form of mutual accredidation, quoting each other as convienent when discussing threats to evolutionary theory.  Also, the AAAS article seems to be the basis of the peer review allegation on the reference (which is incorrect/broken).  I'll reread yet again to see where you're coming from.   Sometimes I miss things. ImprobabilityDrive 17:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, I want to apologize for the tone. It looks like I was emulating OM or Jim.  Shame on me.  ImprobabilityDrive 17:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, and some folks have good reason to be touchy about the subject, though that doesn't justify breaches of CIVIL.Anyway, the AAAS link is broken, but I found the original and added it as a reference to this article. It's perhaps part of the tendency to try to avoid giving creationism the credibility of formal replies that has left responses to these more informal blogs, but with care they can indicate the response of mainstream scientists. As Teach the Controversy indicates, there is belated recognition in the second part of this lecture that avoiding answering creationists has not worked well. .. dave souza, talk 17:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose move - articles are supposed to be listed under the best known title. I don't think I have heard "Sternberg/Smithsonian Affair", and it's far too clunky. I think the current title is fine. Guettarda 03:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Is this policy? I hate to admit it, but if it is policy, you're correct, based on my google searches that excluded wiki.  Could you point me to the policy page indicating that "articles are supposed to be ..."?  Thanks. ImprobabilityDrive 04:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * See the Naming conventions policy... dave souza, talk 05:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose move - Can't argue with Guettarda's reasoning. Thanks dave souza for the link. I withdraw the request. Anything else I need to do? I'll go remove the Rfcs. ImprobabilityDrive 06:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think there was an Rfc for this. ImprobabilityDrive 06:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose move. Proposed page location/name has little to do with the larger issue, which was the peer review controversy. Odd nature 22:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose move. Core issue remains the peer-review controversy. Giving the Smithsonian leg of the controversy centre stage would appear likely to marginalise this, leading to a potentially misleading article. Hrafn42 00:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Strong Oppose the move. The Smithsonian affair has always been a minor sideshow of the peer review controversy. To wit, the American Association for the Advancement of Science has issued a position statement describing events around the Sternberg controversy that focused strictly on the peer review imbroglio and has completely ignored the Smithsonian events. Furthermore, promoting and inflating the Smithsonian controversy as example of the alleged "persecution" of ID proponents is a well documented part of the Discovery Institute's campaign. Taken with the fact that absolutely no non-partisan source supports their version of events and those sources that do are not just partisan, but overwhelmingly partisan (Santorum, Souder, Klinghofer), there's zero reason to help them with their spin campaign. FeloniousMonk 03:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Recommend Splitting off Smithsonian-Sternberg Controversy Support the discussion above to maintain the Sternberg peer review focus. However I support part of ImprobabilityDrive's recommendation by splitting off the "Smithsonian-Sternberg Controversy" as a separate page. This focuses on the breach of civil rights by the Smithsonian as distinct from peer review. The House report similarly focuses on this discrimination issue.DLH 20:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"STAFF REPORT, PREPARED FOR THE HON. MARK SOUDER CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE, DRUG POLICY AND HUMAN RESOURCES" It was not in Souder's capacity as an individual representative.DLH 21:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM" report*** While Souder's staff may have prepared it, proper citation should refer to this as a report published by the "COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM", as a


 * But this report was not published by the Committee on Government Reform, in that this committee never formally accepted it. It was commissioned by Souder in his capacity as subcommittee chairman, written by his subcommittee staff, but only published by Souder as an individual representative without it gaining any official standing. Hrafn42 03:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Object to DLH's proposed article split. Firstly, it creates a content fork. Secondly, it puts the cart before the horse, this is one imbroglio, not two. Thirdly, a split promotes the Discovery Institute's attempt to spin the Smithsonian minor imbroglio to distract from the utter failure of ID to pass peer review. Fourthly, we shouldn't be helping the Discovery Institute conduct another Discovery Institute intellignet design campaign. Odd nature 22:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose a split. The peer-review controversy is necessary to provide context to the consequent, artificial and far less significant 'Smithsonian-Sternberg Controversy.' I would also point out that no credible evidence has ever been presented that Sternberg's "civil rights" have been breached, and that these accusations have never been officially evaluated (by court, government agency with jurisdiction or congressional hearing). This cannot help but call into question the validity of these accusations, and the legitimacy of the controversy over them, and thus whether it is sufficiently notable to require a separate article. Hrafn42 00:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I too oppose the proposed split for all the reasons already mentioned and then some. FeloniousMonk 03:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the Smithosonian Controversy section to make it line up with NPOV policies
I fixed the Smithosonian Controversy section to make it line up with NPOV policies. ImprobabilityDrive 23:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No, actually that's called white washed, or bowdlerized. This and this removed critical sourced content which had the net effect of promoting one side's very partisan view of the event. Odd nature 23:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not promoting any side. It is taking the same POV as the NPOV sources used to create it.  NPR is not an interested party to the debate; and, in fact, that they reported it so objectively is quite suprising to me.  But a disinterested account is not POV.  And science blogs are not disinterested.  Even so, I will try to review the edits you point out above and include any NPOV information that I should have kept.  But mind you, I do not take kindly to relying on interested self published sources like science blogs when they are an interested party to the dispute.  (This is NOT to say that a science blog is never a good source; but on disputes involving scientists, instead of science, I don't think they are all that reliable.  The Smithsonian controversy was not a dispute about science; My POV is that it was a dispute about retaliation over a real or imagined surreptitious coup d'etat by a real or imagined closet Intelligent designer.  However, neither NPR nor the Washington Times did anything more than allude to the possibility.  Likewise, I alluded to it as well.  This is the NPOV presentation, and if you have a beef with it, you might want to write NPR and/or the Washington Times.  Or make a better case than "it sounds POV to me."  The references comply with wikipedia standards.
 * If you think I unfairly mischaracterized the references, I am willing to discuss it. But don't accuse me of inserting my POV when I am trying to emulate the NPOV of the RS. ImprobabilityDrive 00:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * One more thing that IS lacking is the responses that the OSC was a political appointtee, and that Mark Sounder is a supporter of I.D. and/or creation. I will work on that next.  Do you have a suggestion on how to work that in?  We really need to find, if possible, RS, bolstered if necessary by Science Blogs.  The stuff about peer review seems to be presented by mainstream sources as subterfuge.  ImprobabilityDrive 00:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, that was already covered in the content you deleted. FeloniousMonk 02:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. ID's changes clearly gave the DI's account of events undue weight. I've removed them. Make a case for any further significant changes here, please. FeloniousMonk 02:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Palaeontological Association Newsletter piece on Meyer article
I think this piece might provide some useful info for the article. Some highlights: 

I apologise if this piece has already been brought up. Hrafn42 04:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sternberg identifying reviewers
The article quotes Sternberg,


 * "four well-qualified biologists with five PhDs in relevant disciplines were of the professional opinion that the paper was worthy of publication"

and goes on to say,


 * "Sternberg has repeatedly refused to identify the "four well-qualified biologists", citing personal concerns over professional repercussions for them."

One of the four is identified: it is Sternberg himself, contributing the double doctorate to the cited total. The article should make this clear. There were not four outside reviewers.

Speaking of identification of reviewers, in previous years the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington had published yearly lists of all the people who had served as peer reviewers. That list is absent for 2004. --Wesley R. Elsberry 19:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Do we have a WP:RS for this? It's definitely something that should be in the article. Being both sole editor & peer-reviewer of and article by somebody with whom you have links is ludicrously incestuous. Hrafn42 04:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * FYI Wes: Here's an interesting Sternberg presentation on the Discovery Institute site: Odd nature 21:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I gots me a question (is he or isn't he)
According to Sternberg's website he is still a Research Associate at the SI. Their website still shows him as a RA butit indicates his appontment term was 5-Jan-04 to 4-Jan-07 which suggests he is no longer a RA there or their webisite is not up to date. I might not have read the article closely enough but his current status with the SI is not clear to me. Can anyone confirm his current SI status? Feel free to let me know if I'm missing the obvious. Angry Christian (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Never mind I did some digging and answered my own question. I also updated the article to shed some light on the details concering his SI appointment dates and the SI policy on research associates, both seem highly relevant to me. Angry Christian (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I come in peace
I posted similar comments on the talk page of the Expelled article, but here's an observation. The lead sentence reads:

The Sternberg peer review controversy concerns the conflict arising from the publication of an article supporting the controversial concept of intelligent design in a scientific journal, and the subsequent questions of whether proper editorial procedures had been followed and whether it was properly peer reviewed.

To me this says publishing an ID paper was the crime, and later they suspected ("questions") an editorial procudure was circumvented (or ignored).

Yet when I read the lead of the journals statement:

''The paper by Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," in vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process''

I get the distinct impression that first and foremost an editorial procedure was not followed, they are convinced the editorial procedure was ignored (they would know better than any 3rd party)). The fact that the paper was ID seems secondary to the fact an editorial policy was ignored.  The paper could have been about healing magnets or curing cancer with crystals, anything non-scientific would qualify.  I'm not sure and perhaps I'm splitting hairs but to me the Wiki lead does not match the journal's comments as precisely as it could.  And again, judging by their own comments it would seem the primary issue is ignoring the typical editorial process, the secondary issue is the paper was about ID/creationism/preudoscience.

And to be clear, I am not trying to downplay the significance that the paper was ID/nonsense. Only that my reading of the journal's statements tells me their editorial practice was ignored and also the paper was about id (non-science) and I think the lead sentence could use some precision in reflecting that. Make sense? Angry Christian (talk) 15:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Being about ID isn't a "crime", but the paper would have gotten closer scrutiny and the resulting controversy more publicity because it was about ID. This is a controversy because the paper was of poor quality, and the internal editorial and external peer-review processes highly suspect and subverted by a clear conflict of interest. It is a major controversy (and thus one worthy of its own article) because it was an ID paper -- so ID does warrant prominent mention in the lead. If you can think of a way to better express this, then you're welcome to try. HrafnTalkStalk 15:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll try and improve it when I get a few spare minuts, I don't have strong feelings about it so if my changes don't read like an improvment I won't get my feelings hurt if it's reverted. It's a logical order of the statements in the lead mainly.  To me the editorial process being ignored goes first, the ID element goes second.  Pretty simple change in my mind.  Angry Christian (talk) 16:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If you're going to increase the prominence of "editorial process" in the lead, you should keep in mind that the problems with that included (i) the article being on a subject (the Cambrian explosion), well out side the journal's subject area and (ii) Sternberg's (the sole editor who looked at it) lack of expertise in the article-subject (which is in palaeontology); as well as the irregularities, conflict of interest and poor article quality I alluded to above. HrafnTalkStalk 11:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

AAAS on the connection between Sternberg's ISCID membership and controversy
It is therefore completely unexceptional to mention Sternberg's ISCID membership in this article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

In response to Northfox's ill-considered removal of this material, I would point out that nobody is claiming "that he was a fellow AT THE TIME OF PEER REVIEW", nor is that claim necessary for relevance. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) We have a third-party source indicating that his membership is relevant (see quote above).
 * 2) Given his presentation at an ISCID conference before the controversy, combined with his membership during or after (and it really doesn't matter much which), his pro-ID sympathies are very clear, as is his conflict of interest.

Number of reviewers
I'm deleting the sentence, "Sternberg's statement implies that there were four outside reviewers," from below the third quote box in "The peer review process." Sternberg clearly stated, "Three reviewers responded and were willing to review the paper;..." Three. I'm quoting his more complete statement, bolding the parts pertinent to the question. The Meyer paper was submitted to the Proceedings in early 2004. Since systematics and evolutionary theory are among my primary areas of interest and expertise (as mentioned above, I hold two PhDs in different aspects of evolutionary biology), and there was no associate editor with equivalent qualifications, I took direct editorial responsibility for the paper. As discussed above, the Council of the BSW had given me, the managing editor, the discretion to decide how a paper was to be reviewed and edited as well as the final decision on whether it would be published. I had previously chosen on several occasions to handle certain papers directly and that was accepted as a normal practice by everyone involved with the Proceedings. (This was confirmed even after the controversy over the Meyer paper arose. In a description of a Council meeting called to discuss the controversy, President Dr. McDiarmid told me by email, "The question came up as to why you didn't pass the ms [manuscript] on to an associate editor and several examples were mentioned of past editorial activities where a manuscript was dealt with directly by the editor and did not go to an associate editor and no one seemed to be bothered...")

Nevertheless, recognizing the potentially controversial nature of the paper, I consulted with a colleague about whether it should be published. This person is a scientist at the National Museum of Natural History, a member of the Council, and someone whose judgment I respected. I thought it was important to double-check my view as to the wisdom of publishing the Meyer paper. We discussed the Meyer paper during at least three meetings, including one soon after the receipt of the paper, before it was sent out for review.

After the initial positive conversation with my Council member colleague, '''I sent the paper out for review to four experts. Three reviewers responded and were willing to review the paper;''' all are experts in relevant aspects of evolutionary and molecular biology and hold full-time faculty positions in major research institutions, one at an Ivy League university, another at a major North American public university, a third on a well-known overseas research faculty. There was substantial feedback from reviewers to the author, resulting in significant changes to the paper. The reviewers did not necessarily agree with Dr. Meyer's arguments or his conclusion but all found the paper meritorious and concluded that it warranted publication. The reviewers felt that the issues raised by Meyer were worthy of scientific debate. I too disagreed with many aspects of the Meyer paper but I agreed with their overall assessment and accepted the paper for publication. Thus, four well-qualified biologists with five PhDs in relevant disciplines were of the professional opinion that the paper was worthy of publication.

Please note that I am not passing judgment on the veracity of Sternberg's statement, but only making sure that we accurately represent what he states. (Since "Sternberg's statement implies that there were four outside reviewers," is not referenced, it would seem that was OR, anyway, and so disallowed.) Yopienso (talk) 03:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm also deleting the bit about who reviewed a paper of Sternberg's. This is totally irrelevant to the paragraph and presumably juxtaposed to imply the same men reviewed Meyer's paper. We don't want innuendos, but sourced facts. If Sternberg's statement is true, these men could not have reviewed Meyer's paper since they work for the Discovery Institute, not "an Ivy League university," "a major North American public university," or "a well-known overseas research faculty." At least not according to our articles on Nelson and Wells, or Wodd's homepage. Yopienso (talk) 04:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've restored both. They are long-standing and well-sourced, and I'm not finding your reasoning here compelling. Please make a case on the talk page before deleting any long standing sourced content here. Also, I note you're working on your talk page with one of the long running pro-ID editors of this topic. Please consider your sources before proceeding. Odd nature (talk) 00:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, Odd nature. Notice above, I did make a case here before deleting.  So far you're the only editor who has commented;  thank you for your interest.  Here's how I see things:

1. "Sternberg's statement implies that there were four outside reviewers" seems to be unfounded and WP:SYN. The excerpt very clearly states "Three reviewers responded and were willing to review the paper..." How does that imply four?

2. The comments about who reviewed a paper of Sternberg's are irrelevant to who reviewed Meyer's.  I see no reason to include them. Whether they are long-standing and/or well-sourced doesn't matter since they don't pertain to the article. (Now that I've looked, the allegations seem to be unsourced. That certainly doesn't mean they're untrue.)

3. Did you intend to include this sentence twice? "The Discovery Institute is the hub of the intelligent design movement." (Oh--I see Aunt Entropy has fixed this since I started writing. The sentence still occurs again later.)

4. I'm not "working" with anyone on this topic except that in a general sense I'm working with everyone. An editor left an unsolicited note on my talk page and I responded. We've had no prior nor subsequent communication. I do want to collaborate with you and all comers on improving this article. Please reconsider my points: Did Sternberg say three or four? Does who may have reviewed a paper of Sternberg's from two years earlier have anything to do with his publishing Meyer's paper? Yopienso (talk) 04:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC) "...the Discovery Institute, hub of the intelligent design movement,..." appears again in the Criticism section. Do we want that twice? Please remember WP:OR and WP:SYN, which disallow the mention of who reviewed Sternberg's paper:
 * The article was clear, accurated and well-supported prior to your appearance and despite your take on it in my opinion. In reply to your points: 1.) Sternberg's own words "four well-qualified biologists with five PhDs in relevant disciplines were of the professional opinion that the paper was worthy of publication" clearly implies four reviewers, meaning stating "Sternberg's statement implies that there were four outside reviewers" in this topic is not only not a WP:SYN violation, but necessary for a complete description of the issue. 2.) Sternberg refuses to identify the reviewers of Meyer's paper, meaning who reviewed Sternberg's paper are relevant, particularly when you see that he favored fellow creationists and his relationship to creationist Meyer and the creationist Discovery Institute. 3.) The passage being included twice is an error. One that would not have occurred if the article had not been whitewashed. 4.) Your comments to the party in question say otherwise. Odd nature (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think maybe you're missing the word "outside" here, meaning besides himself. Sternberg explained there were three besides himself, and he made a fourth.  It's very clear.  Wikipedia sounds silly when quoting, "Three reviewers responded and were willing to review the paper;.." followed by "one...another...a third...." and then alleging, "Sternberg's statement implies that there were four outside reviewers."  Our quote omits (in the ellipsis between "publication" and "four") "I too...,"  bringing the tally to four and making abundantly clear that Sternberg was not claiming there were four outside reviewers.

The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by any of the sources. Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.[5] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. I'm hoping some other editors will help us find our way here. Yopienso (talk) 03:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sternberg_peer_review_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=61703533 All this time the surname of one of the reviewers has been misspelled, but that doesn't mean it can't be corrected now. Wikipedia wants verifiably accurate material and does not want "A + B = C" no matter if the material in question is long-standing. Can anyone give me a good reason not to delete that section and the sentence about four reviewers? Yopienso (talk) 03:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC) Yopienso (talk) 07:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Long standing" is not a reason to keep information on the page. It's complicated to track the diffs, but I'll give it a go soon.  Many of the changes that were reverted were my own, and erased things like small wording choices (the replacement of "controversial" with "discredited Creationist concept" in this edit) as well as larger changes such as WP:OR/WP:SYNTH issues (in the same edit).  While I appreciate things like the replacement of sources I removed by accident, I don't appreciate the removal of citation templates and other incremental changes.  I agree with Yopienso that there do appear to be several OR issues on the page, and will try to do the review later today.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 10:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure it is, especially when users in good standing crafted it years ago. And sorry about your incremental changes, but if they hadn't been added to the white washed version they would still be in there. Let's spend more time defending against white washes and less on adding templates. If there's any unsourced OR, I'm not seeing it. Odd nature (talk) 23:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The bit about who reviewed Sternberg's paper was added by Felonious Monk July 2, 2006.
 * That was nearly four years ago, and the policies and guidelines have changed significantly since then. In addition, longevity is not a reason for an edit to remain - adherence to the policies and guidelines is.  Since the page is about the Sternberg peer review controversy, we should only retain information specific to that issue - not related to Sternberg in general unless it is contextualized explicitly by a source.  WP:BLP is still a concern, even if the page is not exclusively regarding a person.  There are a lot of sources, I'd rather leave out the OR (particularly when the information given by the sources is so damning without the need to cobble together aspersion, allusion and innuendo).  It's pretty clear that Sternberg is some form of ID/creationist, that's all that needs to be said for the context of the paper.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 00:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've invited Felonious Monk to come by and offer his two cents. Yopienso (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Two comments - based on his contribution history, he looks substantially retired. Second, though he can provide a bit of context and discussion, ultimately it's about the policies and guidelines, not longevity or who the contributor was.  If he can't justify the edits by reference to the P&G, or there is no consensus to ignore all rules particularly WP:OR and WP:BLP, then I still believe the text should be removed.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It looked to me that he'd been gone since July, 2008, but upon nosing around, I found a contribution from this April. Can't remember where I found it!  :O  (Hmm, now I wonder if that was April 2008.)  This is a courtesy I'm extending him because of the great deal of work he's done at Wikipedia. I was thinking to remove the bits within a day or two if there is no further comment. I'm not sure if the two of us form a consensus, but it's definitely a majority so far. You are of course free to edit as you see fit. Yopienso (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Here we go--he was on just yesterday. Yopienso (talk) 23:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL--forgot the link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/FeloniousMonk
 * OK, I'm deleting the questionable items. Yopienso (talk) 00:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding "It's pretty clear that Sternberg is some form of ID/creationist, that's all that needs to be said for the context of the paper."--that's a can of worms I've been loath to open. Will do so on the Talk: Richard Sternberg page.  Yopienso (talk) 07:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Undent. I think that is covered through a mention of his associations - "Sternberg is a member of the barminology study group..." etc. If we have sources that state this explicitly, then I think using them is worthwile if attributed properly ("X said at Y that Sternberg is probably a creationist" where X is an author and Y is a source). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Welcome, Felonious Monk! I was looking for you a few months ago.  Please read my edit summaries of 03:56 24 April, 3 May, and 07:17 2 June of this year, and read this section, add any comments you may have, and wait for a consensus before editing what I just reverted. Thanks!  --Yopienso (talk) 06:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Not an NPOV article
This article doesn't read very neutrally at the moment. In fact, it appears to be an editorial complaining about the publication of the ID article in a peer-reviewed journal. The article should, at first, simply explain what the article was about, then conclude with a "Controversy" section which is not bigger in size than any other section in this article. Cla68 (talk) 11:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't go fishing for trouble. Two other recent edits of yours seem like you have a can of worms you're just itching to use as bait.
 * 1. Adding "according to Scientific American," which was clearly footnoted.
 * 2. Calling FeloniousMonk out for an edit that's already been taken care of. I see no constructive reason for your asking him about it.
 * Please consider that since the article is specifically about a controversy it will logically enough deal with that controversy and does not need a separate "Controversy" section.
 * Thanks, and Happy New Year. Yopienso (talk) 15:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I am proposing that Richard Sternberg be merged here (as discussed in the recent AfD on that article), per WP:MERGE rationale 'overlap' (more than half of that article is on this controversy) and WP:BLP1E. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - as I stated in that AFD, these articles have substantially the same content and I don't think we need to keep them both. Robofish (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support merging the BLP into this article. Cla68 (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Yopienso (talk) 01:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Useful reference
WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Sternberg peer review controversy. 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:
 * Replaced archive link https://web.archive.org/web/20050204153452/http://www.rsternberg.net/Procedures.htm with https://web.archive.org/web/20050306180309/http://www.rsternberg.net/Procedures.htm on http://www.rsternberg.net/Procedures.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040714104028/http://www.discovery.org/csc/fellows.php to http://www.discovery.org/csc/fellows.php

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Sternberg peer review controversy. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061214210656/http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/08/sternberg_and_t.html to http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/08/sternberg_and_t.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061214210656/http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/08/sternberg_and_t.html to http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/08/sternberg_and_t.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070111101133/http://www.souder.house.gov/sitedirector/~files/AppendixtoReportIntoleranceandthePoliticizationofScienceattheSmithsonian.pdf to http://www.souder.house.gov/sitedirector/~files/AppendixtoReportIntoleranceandthePoliticizationofScienceattheSmithsonian.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070425194351/http://www.souder.house.gov/_files/IntoleranceandthePoliticizationofScienceattheSmithsonian.pdf to http://www.souder.house.gov/_files/IntoleranceandthePoliticizationofScienceattheSmithsonian.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)