Talk:Richard Sternberg/Archive 1

Intelligent design is not scientific creationism

A fair presentation of the ID point of view requires one to acknowledge its claim that in terms of their proposal Creationism an ID are substantially different. see below Dembski's quote on the subject:

The 'creationism' charge has been widely refuted by ID proponents as a charge of abuse that avoids dealing fairly with the substantial issues of this controversy. erasmocbc 19:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't the text book "Pandas and People" entered as evidence in the Dover PA trial along with evidence that it had originally been published with the words "creation" and "creationism" but that later versions (after the Edwards trial that ruled that Creationism was religious) the words were replaced with "Intelligent Design" and such?

Apple Rancher 04:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you can read Barbara Forrest's testimony at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day6am2.html#day6am539 — Dunc|☺ 12:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Sterberg is ID proponent?

If you want to argue this then go to #"intelligent design proponent" & address the evidence there that he is an ID proponent.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have strong objecitons to this error. R. Sternberg is not an ID advocate, though he published an article (which was supposedly in favor of ID) through a transparent editing process. I will paste a link to a video where he says in the beginning that he is NOT an ID proponent. Blatant aggression against anti-evolution scientists shouldn't promote errors in Wikipedia. http://www.tkk.fi/Yksikot/Bioprosessitekniikka/matti/matinvideot/RSViewGenome.mpeg And I object to editors who can't find the thread on the topic (it's #"intelligent design proponent" below -- which has a stack of evidence that he's an ID advocate), don't put new threads at the bottom & don't sign their comments (with ~~~~). We're well aware that Sternberg has been lying about his creationist links for some time. Such dishonesty is par for the course among creationists. HrafnTalkStalk 16:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC) And such talk from and an article editor shows clearly how subjective you are on this matter. Equaling creationists = liers disqualifies you to edit this page because whet wikipedia desperately needs is objectivity in it's articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.50.9.167 (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC) Lies and dishonesty from creationists is well documented. Two creationist School Board members committed perjury in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. I just caught William Dembski deviously trying to create the false impression that Michael Denton's PhD is in Developmental Biology, when in fact it is in Biochemistry. The list is endless. HrafnTalkStalk 17:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC) Still, equating creationists = liers is simply hostile. Most ID advocates have PhDs (not confirmed, but I have a hunch), that kind of tells us that they shouldn't be treated unfairly. Saying "all of them lie" or "most of them lie" is unfair. You should give me a good list written by objective viewers before I believe that all fo them are liers. You're not contributing much to this evolution-creation-ID discussion because you lack certain "outsider" viewpoint. If you started to detest me because I'm a "creationist" well you're wrong. I don't support ID, it needs fixing and clarifying before I could adopt it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.50.9.167 (talk) 17:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC) I didn't make that equation -- I said "Such dishonesty is par for the course among creationists." And it is. All Creationism is based on the misrepresentation (or outright denial, which is intellectual dishonesty) of modern science. So honesty from would be counter-productive. HrafnTalkStalk 17:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The Charge of Creationism

"Despite intelligent design’s clear linkage, both methodologically and in content, with existing sciences that sift the effects of intelligence from undirected natural forces, critics of intelligent design often label it a form of creationism. Not only is this label misleading, but in academic and scientific circles it has become a term of abuse to censor ideas before they can be fairly discussed.

To see that the creationist label is misleading, consider that one can advocate intelligent design without advocating creationism. Creationism typically denotes a literal interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis as well as an attempt to harmonize science with this interpretation (Morris 1975). It can also denote the view common to theists that a personal transcendent God created the world, a view taught by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (Johnson 2004). In either case, however, creationism presupposes that the world came into being through a creative power separate from the world.

Intelligent design, by contrast, places no such requirement on any designing intelligence responsible for cosmological fine-tuning or biological complexity. It simply argues that certain finite material objects exhibit patterns that convincingly point to an intelligent cause. But the nature of that cause—whether it is one or many, whether it is a part of or separate from the world, and even whether it is good or evil—simply do not fall within intelligent design’s purview. Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Contra Gentiles (III.38), put it this way (quoted from Pegis 1948, 454–455):

By his natural reason man is able to arrive at some knowledge of God. For seeing that natural things run their course according to a fixed order, and since there cannot be order without a cause of order, men, for the most part, perceive that there is one who orders the things that we see. But who or of what kind this cause of order may be, or whether there

be but one, cannot be gathered from this general consideration.

Consistent with this statement, Aristotle, who held to an eternal uncreated world and to a purposiveness built into the world, would today hold to intelligent design but not to creationism (see his Physics as well as his Metaphysics in McKeon 1941)."

quoted from Dembski's "In Defense of Intelligent Design." p.3-4. [1]]

erasmocbc 21:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh do come along. See the articles on intelligent design and creationism that explain that ID is a form of creationism. Intelligent design is defined and treated as a form of creationism by its supporters.

You will have to prove this point with relevant quotations from it supporters.

What is presented above is Demsbki's attempt at a strawman of creationism, by defining creationism as young earth creationism, followed by the argument that he is not being that' silly.

It is rather his exposition of the ad-hominem attepmt to preempt a fair discussion of the issues using descrediting labels.erasmocbc 20:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Yet ID calls for a intelligent designer - a creator God. The sociological links between the ID movement and creationism are easy to demonstrate; both historically, economically and the stated views of its proponents - everyone knows who the intelligent designer is, but no-one is prepared to say because it reveals the faith-based nature of this pseudoscience. Dunc|☺ 19:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

This is a forgone conclusion that is rejected by ID advocates.erasmocbc 20:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

In the case of Sternberg it is an unfounded charge.

"They were saying I accepted money under the table, that I was a crypto-priest, that I was a sleeper cell operative for the creationists," said Steinberg, 42 , who is a Smithsonian research associate. "I was basically run out of there."

An independent agency has come to the same conclusion, accusing top scientists at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History of retaliating against Sternberg by investigating his religion and smearing him as a "creationist." [2]

erasmocbc 20:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

If you want to extend the ad-hominem attack upon this man you will have to justified it. But do not just raise the charge without justification.

The article "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories" is not an article on creationism. erasmocbc 20:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not so well read on the issues at hand, but having read carefully over the internet about the article, and the person in questiong, I 've come to the conclusion, that the evolutionists are a mean spirit bunch and demonstrate a worse kind of fanatisism than that of the worst type of islamic say zealot. That's what happens when science takes the mantle of authority in metaphysics, while still maintaining the supposed exactness of science itself...In any case it's a shame to see such a slanderous and ad hominem article, and completely uncalled for, for that matter, in wikipedia... 213.170.207.96 05:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted External links

BTW, why delete the external links with information on Sternberg and the controversy. The washington Post, and the Wallstreet Journal are both reputable sources. Is there any reason not to include these in a fair presentation of this case. Further more. The ones proposing the change have not justified their changes in this discussion page. Is wiki a means for abuse? or for fair presentation of information? erasmocbc 20:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

"Only" Peer-Reviewed Article

Duncharris, why did you revert? Have you reason to believe that the article in question is the only one "advocating" intelligent design? ID advocates claim that now they have at least several more-- for one example, see Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force? Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62. Maybe all the articles went through in similarily shady situations and maybe they are wrong, but as this is a disputed claim wikipedia doesn't seem the best place to make it (see NPOV).

Or am I missing something here? --AlsatianRain 23:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The original wording was accurate. Claiming to have multiple peer-reviewed publication and actually having them are two very different things. The claims on the Discovery Institute regarding peer reviewed pro-ID articles appearing in mainstream scientific journals have been shown to be exaggerated, with either the publications being either not mainstream science or the article not actually containing any actual research in favor of ID. FeloniousMonk 20:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Language - "withdrew"

If a journal issues a statement saying that a paper was improperly published, is that the same as "withdrawing" the paper? Why not just use the language they use? Saying they "withdrew" the paper is placing an interpretation on their statement. How exactly can they withdraw something that has been already published anyway? Further to Hrfan's comments in reverting my edit - is an "explicit disendorsement" the same as "withdrawing" a paper? Barrylb (talk) 04:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I am less concerned about the exact language than that the language paraphrase the publisher's clear intent of disendorsement/disavowal. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Dubious

The article states: "They also stated that Sternberg went outside the usual review procedures to allow Meyer's article to be published." Which is a bit stronger than what can be found at http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html, which specifically states:

“ Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. ”

Sternberg on his website asserts:

“ As managing editor it was my prerogative to choose the editor who would work directly on the paper, and as I was best qualified among the editors I chose myself... ”

The question, per the cited Biolsocwash source, is whether it was atypical for Sternberg to select himself as peer review manager. Yes, Sternberg asserts it was his prerogative to select himself, and Biolsocwash asserts it was not typical. The section needs to be rewritten, as the way it is curently presented seems to overstate the case against Sternberg. Failure to disclose this level of detail makes for a "not quite libel" type of article. We should instead accurately represent the two cited sources. TableManners^C·U·T 04:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

See Form letter sent to all prospective authors for what the "usual review procedures" were. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

To more fully disclose the easter egg link, the form letter is published at http://www.rsternberg.net/letter.htm (As is Sternberg's claim that it was his prerogative to select himself http://www.rsternberg.net/). In any event, this is the dispute in question. It should be described accurately. TableManners^C·U·T 05:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

How is using Sternberg's own title for the page an "Easter Egg"? Whatever Sternberg's self-serving equivocation around the issue is, it clearly establishes "usual review procedures", which is the matter under discussion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOR. I do not object to the use of the document. I object to the implications of the current wording. The disptue is basically twofold, one part is adequately epxlained. First, it was subject matter not associated with the journal. Check. Summarized well. Second, it is that Sternberg did something that was not typical. This part needs to be better described in this article. We don't want to leave it as an exercise to the readers to find this infomration out by reading all the sources. TableManners^C·U·T 05:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, this doesn't relate to your dubious-tag in the article. So my references for this issue are currently in the wrong place. I'll move them when you finish mucking around. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Done for now. Go for it. TableManners^C·U·T 05:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Known for deletion of material

Please do not delete statements and references. If a WP:RS exists (e.g., NPR) and you disagree with the summary, it would be much better to simply resummarize the source, or take your concerns to the talk page. TableManners^C·U·T 05:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do not insert unencyclopedic laundry lists in the middle of an article. If a bibliography is considered necessary it should include the subject's more important works and be at the end of the article, noty in the middle. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point. But you deleted it, not moved it. As a scientist and a student of George Klir, some of Sternberg's papers should be mentioned. Which, I don't know which WP criteria to use to cull the list. But simply deleting all of them seems over the top. I reinserted a smaller list with later articles.

Also, my initial comment was the "known for" line in the infobox. I am just accurately summarzing the WP:RS source. Hopefully, the phrasing is more neutral and accurate. However, in the future, don't simply remove a new source. If you think it was inaccurately summarized, change the summary, don't WP:CENSOR the source. TableManners^C·U·T 05:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do not WP:CENSOR the NPR source, as was done here. And the term "Sternberg peer review controversy" is the title of the wiki article, but not what he is known for per the WP:RS. TableManners^C·U·T 05:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I just restored the source, and used Sternberg peer review controversy (Sternberg case) ^[2] per the WP:RS as a compromise. TableManners^C·U·T 05:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

(1) There was no "Sternberg case" as there never was a formal adjudication on the matter (2) the NPR article was widely criticised for presenting Sternberg's side of the controversy without any substantial attempt to get opposing views, so presenting it as the sole citation for this "known for" is WP:UNDUE weight. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The original research claim tag in the article is surreal. The NPR article cited has the term "Sternberg case". I did not make it up. If you have another WP:RS that calls it something different, just summarize and cite the reliable source. I'll look around for other mainstream accounts of the "sternberg whateveritis". TableManners^C·U·T 07:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I had not realised that you were citing NPR for that exact phrasing. In any case the phrase "Sternberg case" is likely to be confusing, as most Google hits for the phrase were to a court case resulting from a police scandal in Berlin rather than to the matter at hand, and misleading (lacking any further context) as it leaves the impression that there was some formal court case. "Controversy" better encapsulates the wider, more amorphous, and less formalised nature of the issue. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The initial paragraph claims the existence of a controversy but only included a single side of the controversy. In an effort to (1) clarify the details of the controversy for the reader (by nature a controversy has more than one side) and to (2) reduce bias by presenting both points of view, I attached text to the initial paragraph portraying Sternberg's point-of-view on the issue with references to his personal website explaining his position on the issue. This was promptly removed by another contributor (FeloniousMonk) and I'm curious as to why, and would like to hear his reasoning. What is the best practice in this case? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Novan Leon (talk • contribs) 14:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sternberg's alleged victimhood

Sternberg would far more accurately be characterised as the "perpetrator" of the controversy. He started it and has done everything he can to keep it going. The man is a professional and self-created martyr. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This may very well be. However, at wikipedia, we have to find WP:RS, and summarize what they say. TableManners^C·U·T 05:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

If you happen to read Sternberg's own website, you'll see wide discrimination after the article was published [www.rsternberg.net]. In this kind of material/article it is VITAL to be as objective as one can be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.50.9.167 (talk) 10:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

NCSE

The section on the so-called peer review controversy called Sounder's report partisan, and otherwise takes the NCSE line as gospel. This article needs some contributors who disinterested. Clearly the article was writen by NCSE partisans. TableManners^C·U·T 08:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The NCSE/Pandasthumb/TalkOrigins POV of the section is exterme. I think a little Rfc light should be given to this article to attract attention of editors who are not so partisan, understand WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:BLP, and WP:UNDUE. What a train wreck. TableManners^C·U·T 09:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

In other words "why are the mean scientists beating up on the poor lying Creationist?" Because the Sternberg/DI version of events is quite frequently contradicted by the facts. NCSE got it right: "He didn't lose his job, he didn't get his pay cut, he still has his research privileges, he still has his office." All else is pure partisan spin. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

declining manuscript submissions

“ McDiarmid announced that Proceedings Editor Richard Sternberg submitted his resignation as Editor on 9 October 2003 but agreed to remain in the position until a replacement could be found. Past President Richard Banks has agreed to serve as interim Editor beginning 1 July 2004. In view of declining manuscript submissions to the Proceedings, McDiarmid is appointing a committee to investigate electronic publishing. To investigate declining Society membership, he is re-establishing a Membership Committee. ”

and

“ Proceedings Editor Richard Sternberg reported at the Society's Council meeting on 17 May 2004 that four issues of Volume 116 were published comprising 75 papers and 1007 pages. As of 1 June 2004, there were 34 submissions, but neither 117 (1) nor 117(2) had yet been published. Issue 117(1) was submitted in January 2004, but because of the low number of submissions (8), that issue would have been unusually small. Publication was delayed until more manuscripts were ready for publication. A decision was then made to split 117(1) into 117(1) and 117(2), both to be published approximately the same time and very soon. Sternberg acknowledged that the decrease in submissions reported last year finally caught up with us. Furthermore, he noted that the delayed publication of the first issues of volume 117 also was attributable to slower-than-normal production of page proofs and page-proof mailing errors. Issue 117(3) is on track for timely production. The Editor's report was approved by the Council/ ”

are both according to http://www.biolsocwash.org/minutes_2004.html. This is highly relevant, though I open to reasons other than relevancy why it should not be included. TableManners^C·U·T 09:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No it is not "relevant". Declining submissions is not even close to a good reason for publishing a grossly-substandard, non-original (earlier versions of it had appeared previously) paper on a topic (the Cambrian explosion) well outside the journal's topic. It was the equivalent of publishing a romance short-story in it. Not only is your 'connection' linking the two pure WP:OR, but it is tenuous well past the point of absurdity. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

"advocating intelligent design"

Conclusion

An experience-based analysis of the causal powers of various explanatory hypotheses suggests purposive or intelligent design as a causally adequate--and perhaps the most causally adequate--explanation for the origin of the complex specified information required to build the Cambrian animals and the novel forms they represent. For this reason, recent scientific interest in the design hypothesis is unlikely to abate as biologists continue to wrestle with the problem of the origination of biological form and the higher

taxa.

-- The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

What seems to be the problem?

It is clear that Sternberg tried to dishonestly game the system, and suffered no ill consequences long term for it. It seems like a manufactured controversy, where political forces etc were dragged in to create a public relations mess. This continues in the upcoming movie. Basically Sternberg is no scientist from what I understand. He is lucky to have a job at all after what he did. Why are we trying to make excuses for this kind of behavior? There is no excuse.--Filll (talk) 15:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

That is the problem. It is clear to you and a few WP:OWNers of the article. But the WP:RS (reliable sources) currently WP:CENSORed paint a different picture. TableManners^C·U·T 00:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverted to last neutral, accurate version

RFC has not been commented on in a week and it was brought by a notorious, sock abusing POV pusher. Because of these reasons, the RFC has been closed.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
RFC Statement (closed) A reversion was made to the article ostensibly to make it more neutral. The purpose of this Rfc is to seek guidance on the use of sources in relation to WP:RS(reliable sources) and WP:V(verifiability) when compared to what appears to be inside information on the part of some contributors. Is an evolutionist activist blog a WP:RS with regard to classifying a report as "paritsan"? Other similar issues, including WP:CENSORship of sources, involved. 00:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5007508: An NPR story on Intelligent design with significant coverage of the Sternberg case. http://www.rsternberg.net/OSC_ltr.htm Facsimile of OSC pre closure letter. See also http://www.rsternberg.net/Documents/OSC-Sternberg-preclosure-ltr2.pdf, pdf version of same http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110006220 Wall Street Journal editorial on the Sternberg case. http://www.souder.house.gov/_files/IntoleranceandthePoliticizationofScienceattheSmithsonian.pdf U.S. Representative Mark Sounder (or office) report on Sternberg case. http://www.biolsocwash.org/minutes_2004.html: Meeting minutes of BSW establishing declining membership and manuscript submissions immediately before Meyer paper was published. 00:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC) The preceeding was an interruption to the section. I interruptted it for an Rfc, to bring a more diverse crowd's attention to these wholesale reverts on the part of FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs) TableMannersC·U·T 00:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC) Reverted to last neutral, accurate version Recent changes to the article by TableManners violated WP:NPOV, particularly the undue weight clause, to the degree that they were not salavagable. TableManners is presenting partisan, self-dealing sources at face value to the exclusion of more notable and credible views and sources. So, moving forward just like at the other ID articles, we need to be circumspect about the credibility of sources and the notability of the viewpoints they are meant to support. Since this article covers Sternberg's editing of a scientific journal we need to remember that in matters of science the majority viewpoint is that of the scientific community and the scientific community has rejected the claims of Sternberg, the Discovery Institute, and all ID proponents in general. We need to be careful using any source coming from Sternberg himself or the Discovery Institute because of their biased and partisan nature, and be certain to not give their views undue weight due to the fact they represent a tiny minority view. FeloniousMonk (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC) I'm afraid I can't agree with your stance. Wikipedia is a collaboratively-edited encyclopedia; having stood for years does not mean that an article may not be edited again, nor that someone has to seek permission to do so. The edits you reverted included removing references (from sources including the Washington Post) from previously unsourced content, apparently simply because User:TableManners had added them. By all means argue that any particular change violates a policy - that Sternberg's publication history is for some reason not relevant to an article about him, or that the Infobox is superfluous, or that a particular one of Tablemanners' (relatively minor, from what I can see) wording changes introduces POV; but I don't think it's compatible with how Wikipedia works to simply revert a user's non-vandalistic changes in whole, giving no particular attention to any particular one, because you nebulously dislike the general result. WP:OWN is probably the most relevant policy. As far as I can see, the changes you reverted consisted of: Addition of an infobox Removal of the word "controversially" from before 'handled' in the introduction ("who controversially handled the review and editing process...") Removal of the phrase "fulfilling a goal of the intelligent design movement since its inception." from the first paragraph of "Peer review controversy" Adding two references to the same paragraph. Removing "widespread" from before "controversy" in the second paragraph Adding three references to the same paragraph Replacement of "claim was rejected" with "case was closed" in the third paragraph. Removal of "partisan" from before "report" in the same paragraph Adding several references to the same paragraph Addition of a paragraph quoting the Panda's Thumb and the NCSE executive director making statements in opposition to Sternberg Addition of a Publications section Addition of an NPR Story to the External Links Perhaps you could address which of these specifically you consider to have added POV? TSP (talk) 18:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Well sometimes people have destroyed an article so badly by garbage and other assorted rubbish that the only solution is to revert back a long way and start over. I have seen it a few times, unfortunately. Let's consider your points one at a time: Addition of an infobox Maybe worthwhile, maybe not. Not a notable figure really to be honest, so does he need this? (I hope you don't mind me interspersing comments - it seems the only way to sensibly reply without duplicating all of each other's comments each time.) He's got a Wikipedia page, I don't really see why he shouldn't have an infobox. FM has put this back, in any case. TSP (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Removal of the word "controversially" from before 'handled' in the introduction ("who controversially handled the review and editing process...") Bad English if nothing else. Yes, I agree. The version that is bad English, though, is the one reverted TO. TSP (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Change implied Sternberg's handling of the matter was not controversial, something it's existance argues against and ID promotors would like to see this article do. FeloniousMonk (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Removal of the phrase "fulfilling a goal of the intelligent design movement since its inception." from the first paragraph of "Peer review controversy" Maybe worthwhile, but maybe not. Actually does not really fulfill a goal since it is a fake a fraud and completely dishonest. Frankly, in other venues, Sternberg would be in jail for this kind of dishonesty. But appears to fulfill the goal, even if fake. It was unsourced, in any case, so could justifiably have been removed on those grounds. TSP (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Not every statement needs a separate source, and other sources in this article cover this matter sufficiently. FeloniousMonk (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Adding two references to the same paragraph. Are they worthwhile? One from NPR, one from the Biological Society of Washington's own meeting minutes. Given that until then the statement had no references at all, it seems like an improvement. TSP (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC) NPR article was written by a reporter known to be overly sympathetic and credulous to the ID cause, the second source does not really support the passage it was added to. FeloniousMonk (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Removing "widespread" from before "controversy" in the second paragraph So what? So what indeed. It's not a big deal, I just think that a reversion should be justified on the basis that the addition makes the article worse, not because of who made the change. TSP (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC) We're not going to be downplaying the size and scope of the controversy, something no doubt Sternberg and other ID promotors would like to see this article do. FeloniousMonk (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Adding three references to the same paragraph Worthwhile? One from the National Centre for Science Education, one from the Washington Post, one more from the Biological Society of Washington. Look worthwhile to me. TSP (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Replacement of "claim was rejected" with "case was closed" in the third paragraph. Both accurate, but one is a bit more accurate given the views of the science community. It's talking about an employment matter; I don't think that the scientific community is the usual arbiter of employment law. TSP (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Removal of "partisan" from before "report" in the same paragraph Not partisan? "Partisan" appears to be an opinion to me, so shouldn't be there in the narrative voice. TSP (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Adding several references to the same paragraph Worthwhile? Sadly mostly to a site that seems to be down right now. They were added to a section that was previously not at all sourced, so yes at least to that degree. TSP (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Addition of a paragraph quoting the Panda's Thumb and the NCSE executive director making statements in opposition to Sternberg Worthwhile? I'd think so; at least not POV in Sternberg's favour, as they directly opposed him. TSP (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Addition of a Publications section This guy is not that notable. Let him put his resume on his own website. He's got an article, I don't particularly see why his publications shouldn't be mentioned on it. A minor issue worth debating - but not a vandalistic addition requiring out-of-hand reversion. TSP (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Addition of an NPR Story to the External Links So? Exactly, so? I'm just not seeing the alleged POV-pushing here. TSP (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Barbara Bradley Hagerty, the NPR reporter, is well known for writing articles that are sympathetic to ID in that they credulously repeat the Discovery Insitute's talking points on the matter. This is understandable considering her role at NPR as its religion reporter; read this letter by the NPR Ombudsman: NPR: NPR and 'Intelligent Design': Skeptical or Credulous?. Her article offered here as a source credulously repeated the DI and gives short shirft to that of the mainstream scientific community, not to mention that it was overtaken by the subsequent Dover ruling. FeloniousMonk (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC) The link you just provided states "She is as fair a reporter as I have encountered and she brings an understanding to her subject that equals that of other NPR beat reporters. Bradley Hagerty is no more "pro-religion" than, say, NPR's media reporter, David Folkenflik, is "pro-journalism" or NPR newscaster Nora Raum is 'pro-news.'"[3] This is surreal. TableMannersC·U·T 23:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC) And some editors are no more dense than is George W. Bush. •Jim62sch•dissera! 02:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC) I bet there was more than this. I have had several articles I wrote be gradually destroyed until they were unreadable inconsistent messes by erosive edits. So what is wrong with starting out over again? I support this. Hrafn supports I bet. FM does I bet. I bet we can get dozens more who do. So it appears which way the consensus is, and I believe WP:OWN is a factor, but more on the creationist anti-science side.--Filll (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC) This is from analysing the diffs, and it's all I could see - I may have missed a couple of minor changes, but this is the bulk of it. I don't see how any of the edits has made the article noticeably worse, and I'm certainly not seeing either a sustained POV-pushing campain, nor an unreadable inconsistent mess caused by erosive edits. Ultimately, no-one owns a Wikpedia article. If you write it on Wikipedia, then it's going to get edited mercilessly. If you feel a particular edit has made the article worse, that's fine - change it back, or try to integrate your version with theirs. But I don't think it's in the Wikipedia spirit to just revert back whole slews of good-faith edits indiscriminately to your approved version because another editor didn't ask before making them. I don't think that's how Wikipedia works. TSP (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Sorry, but your "analysis" makes the same mistake as TableManners' changes; you place the minority viewpoint, that of Sternberg and the Discovery Institute (a tiny minority viewpoint at that) on par with that of the much larger majority view. TableManners added 13 new cites to the article, all from Evolution News, the Discovery Institute; the most partisan source on the issue. We're not going to be so credulous with the claims of demonstrably partisan sources as to present them as equal to more notable and credible sources, particularly at the expense of WP:NPOV. In not sure what point you think you're proving here, but it's not that you are up to speed on this topic or the relevant policies. FeloniousMonk (talk) 18:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Sorry, but the sources were WP:R and WP:V, and not from the discovery institute. NPR is left wing, not right wing, in case you have not listened to them before. But even if you are correct, and NPR got it wrong, you have WP:V to contend with. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.Removing cited material is not kosher. It seems to me that the reverters have inside information, extra, beyond what is available in the [{WP:RS] and WP:V sources, and they do not like the Washington post/NPR/New York Times versions of events. Asserting that scientists point of view trump in an employment controvesy is surreal. TableMannersC·U·T 23:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC) It simply seems to me like we are looking at an entirely different set of edits. The edits you reverted added eighteen references: One from National Public Radio Two from the Biological Society of Washington, one direct and one in facsimile stored on Sternberg's website (which could admittedly be questionable) Two from National Center for Science Education One from Washington Post Ten (all at the same point) from evolutionnews.org (i.e. the Discovery Institute), to reference a statement on activities and views of the Discovery Institute, for which it is an acceptable if not ideal source One from The Panda's Thumb weblog One from Sternberg's website, referencing his own activities, for which it is an acceptable if not ideal source I'm not sure I really recognise this concept of POV referencing. A statement can be POV; and it can also be inadequately referenced; but I'm not sure I can see how a statement can be OK utterly unreferenced, but unacceptable if the content is identical but a reference is added from a partisan source (where the statement describes the activities of that source). If TableManners had removed references from, say, the Washington Post, to substitute ones from Evolution News, then absolutely that would be wrong. But he (or she) didn't; he added references, some from neutral sources like the Washington Post and (as far as I know) NPR; others, when it related directly to activities of particular groups to those organisations (the Discovery Institute, the NCSE and the Panda's Thumb weblog); which, by my reading of WP:SELFPUB, is fine. It would absolutely be better to reference the activities of the Discovery Institute to, say, the Washington Post; but in the absence of a reliable and neutral source, a self-published source can meet the requirements of WP:V if it relates solely to the activities of the group that published it; which was the case here. TSP (talk) 12:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC) I should probably have checked this earlier, but... FeloniousMonk, you are aware that all of the Evolution News cites were added by User:Hrafn in this edit, aren't you? As far as I can tell the largest part of what you have identified as TableManners pushing a POV was actually done by the person who originally complained about him doing so. It seems fairly clear to me that you have significantly misunderstood what's going on here.... TSP (talk) 02:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC) Agreed. TSP re "...But I don't think it's in the Wikipedia spirit to just revert back whole slews of good-faith edits ..." -- good faith doesn't enter into the equation here: bad edits are reverted regardless of the presumed intent. Re "indiscriminately" -- nonsense: FM explained the rv's, explained why the edits by TM were bad; sounds very discriminating to me. Re "...your approved version ..." -- bullocks: it was an NPOV version that had been agreed upon through consensus by a number of editors. Nuff said. One note: TSP is willing to AGF to ridiculous lengths regarding TableManners, but does the opposite re FM. How come? •Jim62sch•dissera! 20:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Not at all; I absolutely believe FM is acting in good faith, I merely disagree with him. As regards TableManners, I'm still not seeing how any of his changes which were reverted were detrimental to the article, let alone so damaging as to have to go "to ridiculous lengths" to believe they were made in good faith. I'm just seeing an editor who edited an article generally to improve it, who has been stamped on because one statement about the actions of the Discovery Institute (which he didn't add to the article, merely added references to) was referenced to a Discovery Institute source. I admit that I haven't exhaustively read every one of his past edits; I'm referring here only to those edits which FM reverted, none of which seem to me to be detrimental. Self-published sources from unreliable witnesses aren't ideal, but as per WP:SELFPUB they can be acceptable under some conditions (which by my reading were met here) and are still better than no source at all. TSP (talk) 12:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC) I think it would be hard to find anything that Sternberg says that meets WP:SELFPUB, as his statements are ubiquitously: contentious; unduly self-serving; and/or involve claims about third parties. HrafnTalkStalk 12:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC) The only thing sourced to Sternberg is his own CV. I'm not aware that that's controversial. TSP (talk) 12:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC) And in any case, opinions only need to be sourced as opinions. If Sternberg's website says "The sky is green - Richard Sternberg" then that obviously isn't enough to state in an article 'The sky is green'; but it is enough to state 'Richard Sternberg states that "the sky is green"'; as long as it is not controversial that he made that statement (and, of course, that the statement is relevant and notable in the context of the article it is in). The Reliable Sources policy is about verifiability, not about notability; if we are recording an opinion, the reliable sources issue is whether our sources (e.g. a website, a newspaper) are sufficiently reliable to establish that that opinion has been expressed; not about whether the person (e.g. Richard Sternberg) expressing the opinion is reliable enough for us to believe he is telling the truth. TSP (talk) 16:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC) Exactly. But I just turned this into an Rfc. It appears that partisan WP:OWNers have inside information not available via the WP:RS (reliable sources). And so we just WP:CENSORed them, in violation of bedrock wiki policies. TableMannersC·U·T 00:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC) Well, bully for you. BTW, jam the red font. Thanks. •Jim62sch•dissera! 02:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC) FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs) may leave the false sense that my edits were in violation of some policy. In fact, they were not, as they relied on WP:RS and WP:V, as described above. Furthermore, for the record, it was in fact Hrafn (talk · contribs) who added all of the links to evolutionnews.org (Discovery Institute citations), as seen here. The WP:CENSORed citations I think should be used to write the article are the subject of this Rfc.

Partisan

I think that TM may be correct that PT isn't a very good source for labeling it partisan. Furthermore, the cited fact that the relevant congresspeople are supporters of ID makes the point clear enough as is. Other than that, agree with the reversions. I do think however that that specific issue may be worth discussing. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

While you may be right that the specific adjective "partisan" might not be supportable, I think it misrepresents the report to refer to it without offering more context. It was, to be blunt, a slanderous and baseless hatchet job, which had no more "facts" underlying its affirmation of Sternberg's claims than the earlier OSC hatchet-job which likewise repeated Sternberg's claims without substantiating them. The disconnect between the claims made in the report and the appendix of evidence that was supposed to substantiate it is glaring, and was commented on at the time. While PT (and Scienceblogs) may not be an ideal source, it would be hard to claim that it is less reliable than the report itself. The principle underlying WP:FRINGE#Parity of sources would seem to apply. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Republican ID supporters are the very definition of "partisan." Since the report was written by Republican supporters of ID only, partisan is apt and identifying as partisan completely justified. 64.237.4.140 (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a perfectly fine opinion; but Wikipedia isn't about editors' opinions.

The only meaning of "partisan" that I can see reasonably applying here is "Devoted to or biased in support of a party, group, or cause." If we are going to accuse two congressmen of bias in a biography of a living person, I think we need a bit more than an opinion; to be honest, I think that the current version is plausibly libellous. I think that the fact that the article describes them solely as "Republican intelligent design advocates" - rather than, for example, 'congressmen' - gets the idea across quite clearly without having to shove in readers' faces that the editors of this article think the report was biased.

As someone on Talk:Intelligent Design once said, good scientific writing is understated. Presenting the plain facts in matters like this is much more powerful than brandishing our opinions at every step. Who would take the opinion of a Wikipedia article anyway? TSP (talk) 00:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Based on WP:BLP, I've removed the term again; I don't want to edit war, but our policy on biographies of living people requires that any contentious unsourced content be removed immediately. If you have definite evidence of bias, please provide it before re-adding this word; if you don't mean to imply bias, perhaps consider another wording which could not be construed in that way. TSP (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The Souder report is little more than the OSC findings warmed-over; as far as I can tell the body of the report contains nothing new. The bulk of that report consists of the OSC findings restated and used as a form of evidence in and of themselves. The report even attacks the Smithsonian for not accepting the OSC’s findings at face value. Consider this passage attacking the Smithsonian’s response:

Finally, the Secretary and Deputy Secretary continue to ignore the clear findings of the Office of Special Counsel in its “pre-closure” letter to Dr. Sternberg. The OSC found that Dr. Sternberg’s allegations of discrimination were supported by the evidence uncovered through its preliminary investigation.

And then it continues for another 4 paragraphs about the OSC, never once questioning its veracity, finally concluding…

The Deputy Secretary responded on May 3, 2006, by claiming that the Smithsonian has “conducted an internal inquiry, including a review of OSC’s preliminary findings, and concluded that Dr. von Sternberg is a Research Associate in good standing at NMNH, and that he has the same access to office space, laboratories, collections, libraries and other common facilities as that accorded to other Research Associates.”76 Tellingly, the Deputy Secretary’s statement completely failed to address the central question of whether the harassment and discrimination identified in the OSC report took place. Indeed, from the Deputy Secretary’s non-responsive “response,” one cannot determine whether the Smithsonian’s “internal inquiry” even addressed this issue. [emphasis original]

This passage exemplifies the extreme dishonesty of the report; those things that the Smithsonian inquired about – Sternberg’s office space, access to collections, status as a Research Associate, etc. – were the very things that the alleged harassment and discrimination consisted of. In other words, the Smithsonian investigated the charges made in the OSC report, found them to be without merit, and got on with their business. Outside of those specific charges, there wasn’t any harassment or discrimination to inquire about.

So contrary to the Souder report, the Smithsonian did not ignore the OSC’s preliminary findings – the letters sent by the Secretaries both to Sternberg and the politicians directly address most if not all of its allegations – it’s that they found the report’s claims and hysterical rhetoric completely wrongheaded. What makes the Souder report something more than just a repeat of the OSC is that it contains an appendix with all of the emails and letters that were used as evidence of Sternberg’s supposed persecution. Thanks to these materials, we now know that the Smithsonian was right and the OSC was wrong. [4]

I think this piece presents fairly clear evidence of "Devot[ion] to or bias[] in support of a party, group, or cause." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

See Original research. CM (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No "original research" is being proposed. My point was that the PT piece substantiates its statements, making it far more reliable than the Souder report with its baseless assertions. I would be quite happy if the PT's "dishonest", with its reasons for applying it, is used instead of "partisan". 00:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrafn (talk • contribs)

"intelligent design proponent"

I'm sure I'm going to get a lot of stick for asking this, but...

Do we have a firm source for labelling Sternberg an "intelligent design proponent" in the first sentence? I agree there's a lot of evidence pointing that way - his speaking at Research And Progress in Intelligent Design conference (though his talk title, "Causal entailments in convergently developed, irreducibly complex organ systems", doesn't necessarily suggest a directly promotional talk), his signing of the Scientific Dissent to Darwinism, and of course his publishing of the controversial article; but still, our usual standards of verifiability generally require more than inference. In the Washington Post article we link to, he says "I am not convinced by intelligent design but they have brought a lot of difficult questions to the fore." Do we have any sourced instances where he himself has directly endorsed ID? TSP (talk) 14:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

He is also a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design, "a non-profit professional society devoted to promoting intelligent design". And I disagree that "Causal entailments in convergently developed, irreducibly complex organ systems" isn't pro-ID. Irreducible complexity is an ID argument, so presenting a talk, explicitly based on the premise that "irreducibly complex organ systems" exist, is to endorse ID. Also, it has been reported that RAPID was an ID-supporter-only event (though I don't have a WP:RS for this point to hand). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

So Research And Progress in Intelligent Design conference wasn't an ID conference? That would explain why it was open to ID advocates only I guess. And he belongs to ISCID, an ID-only body. And the paper he published that started the controversy was written by the one of the leaders of the ID movement, Stephen C. Meyer. The question isn't whether Sternberg is a ID proponent but whether he's one who is honest and upfront about it or prefers to hide behind ambiguity. 64.237.4.140 (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

See Original research. CM (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sternberg is a member of an organisation "devoted to promoting intelligent design", therefore we have direct, prima facie evidence that he is an "intelligent design proponent". This is not WP:OR. This prima facie evidence, far from being in any way rebutted, is further confirmed by his other pro-ID activities (RAPID & most recently participation in the 2007 'Wistar Retrospective Symposium'). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 01:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a term for someone who is a member of the ID group ISCID, who made a presentation supporting ID at the RAPID ID conference, who single-handedly published a ID article in a journal, who has been the beneficiary of support from the leading ID organization - the Discovery Institute, and who is now prominently featured in the ID movie Expelled: Intelligen Design Proponent. The only original research would be in implying they are not one through ommission. 64.237.4.140 (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Richard Sternberg, Research Associate in the Department of Systematic Biology (Invertebrate Zoology) of the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution. He is also a Fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design (ISCID), which promotes intelligent design, and serves on the Editorial Board of the Baraminology Study Group, a creation science group. Given these associations, Dr. Sternberg would appear to be, at very least, an advocate for "intelligent design" and critical of standard peer review processes as they bear on the scientific assessment of the "intelligent design" hypothesis.[5]

dave souza, talk 19:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed; so he is "described by the American Association for the Advancement of Science as 'at very least, an advocate for "intelligent design"'". That's absolutely fine. I just don't think that, with the care that WP:BLP requires us to take, we can nail him down further than that. WP:NPOV says "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves" and defines 'opinion' as "a matter which is subject to dispute." Given that Sternberg himself disputes the label, that seems to me to be, under WP:NPOV's idiosyncratic definition, an opinion; therefore we should give it attributed to the (doubtless reliable and respectable) source that gave it, rather than as our own unqualified view.

In answer to 64.237.4.140, I would say that the best term for someone who is a member of the ID group ISCID, who made a presentation supporting ID at the RAPID ID conference, who single-handedly published a ID article in a journal, who has been the beneficiary of support from the leading ID organization and who is now prominently featured in the ID movie Expelled is "someone who is a member of the ID group ISCID, who made a presentation supporting ID at the RAPID ID conference, who single-handedly published a ID article in a journal, who has been the beneficiary of support from the leading ID organization and who is now prominently featured in the ID movie Expelled". If we find the evidence convincing, then we can present it neutrally with confidence that our readers will also find it convincing. Any sensible reader would much rather see the evidence than simply the conclusions of semi-anonymous wiki editors. TSP (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sternberg is an ID proponent, period. You're denying the obvious. Why is that? 64.237.4.140 (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability - "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth"; and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons - "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research)." Wikipedia does not record the obvious; Wikipedia records the well-sourced. TSP (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That Sternberg is an ID proponent has been verified by his pro-ID affiliation (to ISCID) and a number of pro-ID activities. You appear to be indulging in a WP:POINT on this. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Not remotely. WP:BLP is very clear. His membership of ISCID proves that he is a member of ISCID. If you consider this to make him an ID proponent, that's fine, but it seems to me to be "a conjectural interpretation of a source", as is very clearly forbidden. If the sourced facts seem to clearly lead to a conclusion, then state them and I'm sure that readers will come to the same conclusion. Stating facts will always be more powerful than stating your interpretation of them. TSP (talk) 12:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Membership in an organisation does not lead to "a conjectural interpretation of a source" of agreement with that organisation's primary aim (i.e. support for Intelligent Design), it is prima facie evidence of that agreement. Are you claiming that we cannot call a member of the Institute for Creation Research, the Creation Research Society or Answers in Genesis "a creationist"? You are making an absurdly extremist, and most probably completely unworkable, interpretation of WP:BLP. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps so; I've put a note on the BLP noticeboard to get some input from people with more experience on these matters. TSP (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

<reduce indent> As I mentioned on the noticeboard, google "Richard Sternberg intelligent design" and you'll find the entire world recognizes him as an ID advocate/proponent. There are TONS of reliable, verifiable sources who describe he and his efforts as advancing/advocating the ID cause. Angry Christian (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually as I contemplate this, it might be worthwhile describing the evidence WHY he appears to be an intelligent design proponent, and then include several times he has claimed not to be a proponent, with sources. Basically it is typical for someone like this to be completely dishonest from beginning to end. Let's expose himi for the liar that he is.--Filll (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. My only problem here is that I've seen a lot of things that an intelligent reader would put together and take to most likely indicate an intelligent design proponent; but a lack of definitive evidence that this is definitely the case, other than the AAAS's view that 'Given these associations, Dr. Sternberg would appear to be, at very least, an advocate for "intelligent design"'.

Angry Christian: I have done that search; perhaps you could indicate which of the results you're referring to. To look at the first few (on my Google at least - Google UK's results may differ from those on Google US), we have this Wikipedia article; the Washington Post article in which he states he is not convinced by ID; an NPR article which states that Sternberg believes that ID is fatally flawed; a Wall Street Journal blog stating that Sternberg is not an ID advocate; a blog post addressing only his dishonesty in his complaint against the Smithsonian, not his personal views; an article which states that Sternberg is not an ID advocate; and so on. If the evidence exists I of course think it should be included; I am merely addressing the lack of it at the moment. TSP (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Richard Sternberg states in HIS HOMEPAGE that he supports stucturalism. If that equals intelligent design, fine then. Read is yourself: http://www.rsternberg.net/Structuralism.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.50.9.167 (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason to believe that Structuralism & ID are incompatible -- Structuralism appears to have more in common with ID than with Evolutionary biology. ID is a 'big tent' movement & welcomes a wide range of anti-evolution advocates. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Structuralism article has the idea that it doesn't conflict with evolution, it differs from ID that way. ID has the idea that "some structures in biology cannot be explained by only natural processes". A structuralist can be either adarwinist or an ID advocate. Therefore it shouldn't be made an implication ("if sctructuralist then ID"). ID is still a developing theory and surely wants to have good insight to its problems, so it is illogical to conclude that every person in an "pro-ID" conference is and ID advocate. Sternberg could be (no proof given) an observer and a critique of ID theory. You are trying to make things a black-white -comparison, where the "right-minded" are in one camp and others are in the other camp. 86.50.9.167 (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No he couldn't be. The RAPID conference was ID-advocates-only -- and he presented at it -- HE WAS NOT AN OBSERVER! The Wistar Retrospective was a bunch of ID-advocate speakers (including Sternberg) trying to win over an invited crowd of legitimate scientists. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

At the least he's a fellow traveller, and the "process structuralism" label seems to claim a semi-detached approach to taxonomy which can be compatible with creationism and evolutionary theory, claiming several noted proponents of evolution. As an interim measure I've tried a compromise intro - see what you think. .. dave souza, talk 18:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

In Sternberg's own words, he does "frequently discourse with ultra-Darwinians, macromutationists, self-organization theorists, complexity theorists, intelligent design advocates, theistic evolutionists, and young-earth creationists without necessarily agreeing with any of their views". Is it possible that he associates and proposes multiple possible origin theories without necessarily standing firmly behind any? Would this necessarily categorize him as a "intelligent design proponent" when he could also just as easily be called a proponent of numerous other mutually exclusive theories? I think his writings on his website make it clear that he holds no firm stance other than one as a process structuralist. As such, I think perhaps labeling him as a "intelligent design proponent" right off the bat is more or less biased. A more accurate portrayal of his position would be in a segment listing examples of the different positions he has proposed over time and let the readers decide for themselves where he stands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Novan Leon (talk • contribs) 20:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Sternberg has proven on a number of occasions to be more than economical with the truth. I would therefore take his claims with more than a grain of salt.
• "Is it possible that he associates and proposes multiple possible origin theories without necessarily standing firmly behind any?" It is conceivable, but more than a little unlikely for some combinations, which have very different underlying methodologies and motivations. Particularly there is a big dividing line between religiously-motivated & scientific-method-rejecting creationists (including YEC & ID) and the scientific community (including ultra-Darwinians, macromutationists, self-organization theorists, complexity theorists, & theistic evolutionists). Sternberg's associations with the former are strong and well documented, his associations with the latter undocumented.
• He is a member of the pro-ID ISCID, he has presented at two ID conferences, he has subverted editorial standards to get a poor-quality, off-topic and self-plagiarised pro-ID article published, and he lent himself as a self-publicised (but spurious) 'victim' of 'Big Science' in the ID propaganda movie Expelled. It is therefore legitimate to call him an ID proponent, because it is this advocacy for which he is best known.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Steve Reuland comments

Clearly there are issues here that I'm not understanding. We quote some comments that someone called Steve Reuland (a post-doc at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, according to his blog) made on The Panda's Thumb (weblog). The fact that the comments were made on that blog has now been removed twice, and I'm not really understanding why. Steve Reuland does not seem to be a particularly notable figure, so it is not really notable that Steve Reuland made those remarks. The Panda's Thumb is, however, a notable blog, so it is notable that the remarks were made on that blog. I'm not sure why it is unacceptable to mention the fact that the comments were made on The Panda's Thumb; in my view that's the only reason they are worthy of mention at all. Even if that were not the case, I don't see what would be wrong with mentioning it. Can someone explain? TSP (talk) 11:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion either way on whether explicit mention should be made of the Panda's Thumb (it is to my mind a very minor side-issue), but disagree with your characterisation of the situation. What is notable is that the Souder report made dishonest accusations against the Smithsonian. The Panda's Thumb is only at issue for being a WP:RS for this dishonesty (the particulars of this accusation being easily verifiable from the contents of the appendix to the report, in any case). Therefore neither including nor omitting explicit reference to the Panda's Thumb would seem to be an explicit violation of policy, and so should be subject to general consensus. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the source, I think that "extreme dishonesty" is inevitably an opinion. If a newspaper, or a science textbook, had said that the report contained "extreme dishonesty", we would still need to put 'the report was described by the Washington Post as containing "extreme dishonesty"^[cite]'; not 'the report was extremely dishonest^[cite]'. Remember WP:NPOV's definition of 'opinion' - 'By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." [...] By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a matter which is subject to dispute."' Things can only be presented as fact if they are the subject of no serious dispute; I think that we can assume that at least Souder and Santorum would dispute that the report contained 'serious dishonesty'. Therefore the view of the Panda's Thumb should be presented as a view, and noted to its source; and of course only included at all if that source is a notable one. TSP (talk) 01:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

1. The Smithsonian investigated the specifics of Sternberg's complaints of harassment, and found them to be without merit. (evidence in appendix)
2. The Souter Report claimed that "completely failed to address the central question of whether the harassment and discrimination identified in the OSC report took place", which from (1) is demonstrably and egregiously false.
3. I would agree with Reuland's characterisation of this falsehood as "extreme dishonesty". Can you think of a more accurate characterisation?
4. As the Souter Report was on the subject of this alleged "harassment and discrimination", pretending that the Smithsonian had not disproved the existence of this harassment and discrimination, amounts to the report as a whole being "extremely dishonest". For myself, I would characterise it more colourfully as "a lying sack of shit", but such language is hardly encyclopaedic.
5. The issue is NOT Reuland's specific characterisation (which was only introduced after, IMO tendentious, objections to "partisan"), but the falsehood at the core of the Souter Report. I am getting more than a little sick of your constant attempts to spin this issue.
6. If the Washington Post proved the report to be extremely dishonest, as Reuland did, I would have no problem using their legitimate characterisation of this fact.
7. I don't give a flying toss what Souter & Santorum say. By endorsing a dishonest report, they have barred themselves from being WP:RSs on this topic. The Souter Report lied. This has been proven. Live with it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

TSP is simply hoping to poison the well by mentioning Panda's Thumb ala blog = unreliable. No one makes such a fuss over such a minor point without having some larger motive driving it. That's reason enough to keep the mention as far as I'm concerned. FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it seems pretty clear there is an ulterior motive for this being brought up. Sure it will come up soon enough. Baegis (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have got back on this earlier.

Please avoid personal attacks. My point is precisely the opposite. The point is that Steve Reuland isn't notable; the Panda's Thumb is. If only attributed to a random postdoc, the criticism has no place in the article. If attributed to a notable blog, it is notable criticism.

As Jimbo Wales is quoted in WP:NPOV

* If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;

* If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; [emphasis in original]

* If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not."

At the moment, we only give the criticism as sourced to Steve Reuland; but Steve Reuland is not notable. The Panda's Thumb is, so should be mentioned. TSP (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I refer you to WP:FRINGE#Parity of sources -- the Souter report was put out during a lame duck session of congress by an outgoing chairman, without getting officially sanctioned by his subcommittee. It got minimal, if any, mainstream media attention. That lowers the bar for notability considerably, and brings pretty much any WP:RS, no matter how minor, into play. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

There's still a fairly large disparity between an official report issued by two members of congress, and a statement by a post-doc, if it were not made in a notable source. But I'm not arguing that this should not be included; just that the source for it, what makes it notable, is the notable blog The Panda's Thumb, not the not-especially-notable (except to the extent that he is writing in a notable blog) post-doc Steve Reuland. TSP (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing "official" about this report -- it is merely something that Souter had his staff write, which he put out just before his chairmanship evaporated in an attempt to give it at least the appearance of official sanction. In any case as I have pointed out repeatedly, it is not Reuland's opinion that matters, but the facts, and specifically the fact that the Souter report LIED about the Smithsonian's investigation of accusations of discrimination. Facts don't need a notable source, only a reliable one! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 20:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that it's our role to interpret the sources, but as we've started: my reading of what the Souter/Santorum report means is that, while the Smithsonian statement stated that Sternberg was not then being discriminated against (in the named ways), it did not state that such discrimination had not taken place. Reuland believes this argument to be dishonest, which is fine (as is including his reasoning for such), but I think describing it simply as a lie and therefore that we should unambiguously condemn it in the editorial voice is oversimplifying; so it becomes a matter of different viewpoints. Even if we find one much more convincing than the other, choosing one viewpoint isn't our job. TSP (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Given that the Smithsonian response was given only 9 months after the OSC dropped their investigation, I find your interpretation to be tendentious, particularly lacking any evidence that the Smithsonian's treatment of Sternberg had changed in the meantime. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 22:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Do a bit of web searching and you will find that Steve Reuland is not so unnotable, and probably will be more notable with time for sure.--Filll (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I've had a quick look - anything in particular? He seems a popular figure in science-blogland. TSP (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I was impressed that he has a few articles on TalkReason which is a pretty high quality site.--Filll (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. It has been years now. There is going to be a documentary about this clown now. So what exactly was the discrimination he faced? He lost his job? He lost his office? He what? What happened to him? --Filll (talk) 23:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)