| Revision as of 19:13, 1 July 2006 editDLH (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,171 edits Peer Reviewed section - asking for what query← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:20, 1 July 2006 edit undoFeloniousMonk (talk | contribs)18,409 edits You need a better understanding of Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weightNext edit → | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| I have tried to add categories to highlight the discussion. | 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) | 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) | ||
| :::Just because you advocate minority view does not mean you can ignore ], ] and ]. You need to develop a better understanding of ] 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 . ] 19:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Peer reviewed?== | ==Peer reviewed?== | ||
Revision as of 19:20, 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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight 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)
Peer reviewed?
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)
Category: