Talk:Sternberg peer review controversy
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sternberg peer review controversy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 12 months ![]() |
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
![]() | The contents of the Richard Sternberg page were merged into Sternberg peer review controversy on January 2012. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
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)
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)
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- B-Class Creationism articles
- Mid-importance Creationism articles
- WikiProject Creationism articles
- B-Class Smithsonian Institution-related articles
- Mid-importance Smithsonian Institution-related articles
- WikiProject Smithsonian Institution-related articles
- B-Class Skepticism articles
- Mid-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles
- Wikipedia pages referenced by the press