Jump to content

Talk:Sternberg peer review controversy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Critics vs Supporters

[edit]

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." [1] Further examination of the article revealed that it was substantially similar to previously published articles. [2] 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.

Notes and references

[edit]

Merger proposal

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was merge here. -- HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:42, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.