Talk:Richard Sternberg

message: Has anyone noticed that one of the links used to support the BSWs position on the peer review controversy does not link to a website, and the other one links to a webpage that only contains the position, but does not include any other information about the managers of that website, making it impossible to verify the source of this information? Also the webpage that contains the quote mentions the site www.biolsocwash.org and a site created by the BSW and that site does not exist either.
I think that all referenences to the aforementioned information be removed until VERIFIABLE sources of this information can be found. Mathezar (talk) 16:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have noticed that no one is trying to fix the citation problems I mentioned. Do we just want those references removed then? Mathezar (talk) 07:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biological Society of Washington citation problem 

message: An avid editor repeatedly called Sternberg a liar in a recent discussion section. I assume that this is now the modus operandi at Wikipedia? Accusing notable people under the cloak of anonymity? Northfox (talk) 12:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: nope! May I quote Hrafn? First: Hrafn 18:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

text: The fact that the letter is not from an extremist or fringe source does not mean the report is true.  I do not know, nor do I believe you know, not being onmiscient, whether the report is true or not. It's possible that McVay had the gall to fabricate these e-mails, but I am not alleging that he did:
 As you see, he is presuming most of this rather than asking … there is no space shortage, except insofar as [____] wants to deny him space.
Anyway, the core point, I obviously am not going to be able to find a sponsor for Sternberg, yet his official status is as a research associate for the next three years. If you don’t want to make a martyr of him, I'll sponsor him.
As he hasn’t (yet) been discovered to have done anything wrong, particularly compared to his peers, the sole reason to terminate his appt. seems to be that the host unit has suddenly changed its mind. If that’s OK w NMNH, let me know and I'll send him a letters stating so. However, as you decided originally, the political downside of that is costly.
Outside of pique, [____]’s main legitimate concern seems to be a fear of guilt by association. In any case [____] isn’t going to be shut up about this until he wins (i.e. banishes Sternberg) or gets told to. I'm not going to get bit to death by daily emails. The access and key issues are trivial and can be fixed, if out of line.
The only grounds I see is [____]’s lack of support. If that isn’t sufficient, then I basically have to tell [____] (again) to shut up (which I am willing to do).  http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1488
 
Yopienso (talk) 09:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  liar? 

message: The description was neither "recent" nor 'repeated'. It was made over a year ago, and only once.
:nope! May I quote Hrafn? First: Hrafn 18:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that the letter is not from an extremist or fringe source does not mean the report is true.  I do not know, nor do I believe you know, not being onmiscient, whether the report is true or not. It's possible that McVay had the gall to fabricate these e-mails, but I am not alleging that he did:
 As you see, he is presuming most of this rather than asking … there is no space shortage, except insofar as [____] wants to deny him space.
Anyway, the core point, I obviously am not going to be able to find a sponsor for Sternberg, yet his official status is as a research associate for the next three years. If you don’t want to make a martyr of him, I'll sponsor him.
As he hasn’t (yet) been discovered to have done anything wrong, particularly compared to his peers, the sole reason to terminate his appt. seems to be that the host unit has suddenly changed its mind. If that’s OK w NMNH, let me know and I'll send him a letters stating so. However, as you decided originally, the political downside of that is costly.
Outside of pique, [____]’s main legitimate concern seems to be a fear of guilt by association. In any case [____] isn’t going to be shut up about this until he wins (i.e. banishes Sternberg) or gets told to. I'm not going to get bit to death by daily emails. The access and key issues are trivial and can be fixed, if out of line.
The only grounds I see is [____]’s lack of support. If that isn’t sufficient, then I basically have to tell [____] (again) to shut up (which I am willing to do).  http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1488
 
Yopienso (talk) 09:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Clueless?

message: *Are comments made over a year ago part of a "recent discussion section"? No! Therefore these comments are irrelevant to Northfox's actual accusation.
**Did I make a thorough examination of what I said over a year ago (but had long since forgotten) in originally rebutting an accusation against my comments in a "recent discussion section"? No I didn't -- nor should I be expected to!
*Is the claim that "However, unlike Sternberg, McVay, Bloch & Souder, there is no evidence that she's lied, misrepresented or betrayed trust placed in her" calling Sternberg specifically a "liar"? No! It is leaving highly ambiguous which of them is guilty of which of which malfeasance. Does this amount to "repeatedly called Sternberg a liar in a recent discussion section"? No it does not.
HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Remedial English

message: WP:RS#Non-article space states:
I would point out that the claims I have made (i) have sources (cited in Sternberg peer review controversy) & (ii) are "related or useful to making article content choices", as they pertain to the reliability (and thus suitability for inclusion in the article) of Sternberg, the OSC and Scott as sources.
I would therefore suggest that Northfox's accusation, even if it was modified to pertain to all my comments on this page, not merely those in a "recent discussion section", has no basis under that policy. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:RS#Non-article space

message: The article only focuses on one event. If this is all he is known for perhaps this article should be deleted and an article on the controvesy written, if there is not one already.99.27.204.61 (talk) 13:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an article on the controversy: Sternberg peer review controversy. This article contains a WP:SUMMARY of that article, plus biographical information. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think that having about half of this article being about the controversy is not what's supposed to be happening here. Could that section be trimmed down a bit, it there is already another article on the topic? 99.27.204.61 (talk) 04:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Summarising a closely-related three-section article as a three-paragraph section doesn't seem unreasonable. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: POV and notable

message: I've reverted the additions of Buckles75 as they 1) repeat Sternberg's own rhetoric on the issue as a fact, 2) are supported only by a source , David Klinghoffer, who, like Sternberg, is affiliated with the Discovery Institute and is himself an outspoken promoter of ID and thus not a reliable, neutral source on the topic. Odd nature (talk) 20:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I would tend to agree with Buckles75 on this one. If you have a credible source that states that Sternberg is an Intelligent Design proponent then produce it. As it sits, the preponderance of the evidence rests with Buckles75. If there is a quote from Sternberg that states "I am not an ID proponent," which I believe there is, and there is another source that confirms this, then that should be it. The point should be included in the article. If there are some who believe that he is an ID proponent, then I would think that the bar of proof to should be set pretty high for someone who wants to assert that opinion. Like say a quote from Sternberg, "I know that in public I say that I am not an ID proponent, but in reality I am." So, Odd nature, I would suggest you revert Buckles75's edit back, unless you can justify your actions with some research that shows your position is true. Quoting other's opinions on this matter will not cut it in my humble opinion. Mathezar (talk) 12:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Klinghoffer

message: The lede is so carefully crafted, doubtless after considerable discussion, I hate to bring this up, but we have a discrepancy:  the lede says Sternberg is not an ID proponent, while the Sternbergdisambiguation page says he is.  I suggest his views have, as he puts it, evolved over time.  On his own page [] he calls himself an "evolutionary biologist," and traces his personal journey from atheism to ID. Page 10 records that his thinking is now "compatible with intelligent design broadly defined."  He does not call himself a creationist.  
A problem here is the variety of definitions of "creationism" and "intelligent design."  Eugenie Scott equates the two because a textbook was edited to replace "creationism" with "intelligent design."  Yet Wm. Dembski, a leading ID proponent, distinguishes between the two while still identifying the designer as the Christian God. 
"... intelligent design makes no claims about the origin or duration of the universe, is not committed to flood geology, can accommodate any degree of evolutionary change, does not prejudge how human beings arose and does not specify in advance how a designing intelligence brought the first organisms into being. ..."
So does this article: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/04/melanie_phillips_gets_it_right.html
The "smoking gun" for me is Sternberg's appearance on a recent ID documentary, "Darwin's Dilemma" in which he says, "You can make a strong case for ID based on the Cambrian explosion."  W.r.t. genetic codes, he says they are intelligible--we can read them--and, "There was some intelligent, causative agent."  He also wrote for ID here:  http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/04/shoddy_engineering_or_intellig.html
According to this page http://www.rsternberg.net/v2_Structuralism.htm, he subscribes to "process structuralism." 
How any of this could be sourced and incorporated into this article is a good question.  Yopienso (talk) 08:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Is Sternberg an ID proponent?

message: This person seems to be notable only for one incident, which already has an article: Sternberg peer review controversy.  Is this article really needed? Wolfview (talk) 13:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable

message: WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useful reference 

message: This article appears to be based around a single event. He also fails to meet WP:PROF. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest a WP:BLP1E merge into Sternberg peer review controversy, with this article's 'Biography' section becoming part of a 'Background' section in that article. Who Sternberg is (in terms of affiliations, interests, etc) would seem to be a big part in why the "controversy" happened. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:39, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Ack, I have just discovered that I have a year-old merge proposal on Talk:Sternberg peer review controversy to do just that. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:41, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete?