| Revision as of 19:00, 1 July 2006 editFeloniousMonk (talk | contribs)18,409 edits This is a simple matter of the article needing to represent the majority and minority viewpoints in their proper proportion, per WP:NPOV← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:09, 1 July 2006 edit undoDLH (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,171 edits Responding to majority and minority positionsNext edit → | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| :This is a simple matter of the article needing to represent the majority and minority viewpoints in their proper proportion, per ]. Sternberg's viewpoint being the minority clearly while the publisher's, speaking as part of the scientific community, is the majority. ] 19:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC) | :This is a simple matter of the article needing to represent the majority and minority viewpoints in their proper proportion, per ]. Sternberg's viewpoint being the minority clearly while the publisher's, speaking as part of the scientific community, is the majority. ] 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.] 19:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:09, 1 July 2006
| 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. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | 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. |
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)
Category: