Talk:Creation-evolution controversy/Sternberg dscussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NOTICE: Please do not break apart the following contribution. I have been guilty of this myself in the past, but due to recent controversy over what appears to be the innocent correction of a typographical error, I have since learned that editing other's remarks can only be done with due respect to Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Others.27_comments policy, and now that I looked at the policy, very specific procedures need to be followed, even when responding to a long comment. I would prefer that those who respond simply quote the sentence they are disputing below my comment, but of course, you are free to follow the guidelines here instead.

The section that was blanked by other contributors on the basis, that in their opinion, it was not notable, or not very notable, can be found here, and below without wiki.

This is the contribution that was being blanked.

==== Smithsonian Controversy ====

The Smithsonian controversy began with backlash over the publication of an article written by an intelligent design proponent in a peer-reviewed scientific journal loosely affiliated with the Smithsonian Institution (SI),[1] contrary, according the the publisher, to the journal's "typical" process of also having an associate editor involved in the peer-review process.[2] An article titled The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories by Intelligent Design advocate Stephen C. Meyer was published in the in the August 4, 2004 volume of Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington,(PBSW)[3] Richard Sternberg was the managing editor at the journal, and also a Research Associate at the Smithsonian Institute's National Museum of Natural History (NMNH), and the issue was the last he was to work on (he had previously announced his resignation from PBSW).

Controversy ensued within hours of publication,[4] with senior Smithsonian scientists referring to Sternberg as a "shoddy scientist" and a "closet Bible thumper."[9] Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), a think-tank that promotes evolution, defended the Smithsonian: "They don't care if you are religious, but they do care a lot if you are a creationist,"[5] and "Some [scientists] probably did speak intemperately,"[6] out of frustration and annoyance over Sternberg's role.

Although Sternberg had announced his resignation from PBSW before the controversy irrupted, he continued to work at the Smithsonian as a National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) Research Associate (RA).[7] Sternberg states that he was subjected to a hostile work environment as an RA, and requested that the United States Office of Special Counsel (USOSC) investigate his allegations.[8] The USOSC ultimately concluded in a letter obtained by three media outlets that Sternberg was subjected to a hostile work environment at the NMNH.[10] However, the USOSC closed the investigation without taking further action due to the jurisdictional issue of Richard Sternberg's salary, which was not paid by the Smithsonian.[11] Eugenie Scott, whose organization also consulted with the Smithsoian, countered that "[Sternberg] didn't lose his job, he didn't get his pay cut, he still has his research privileges, he still has his office....You know, what's his complaint? People weren't nice to him. Well, life is not fair."[12] U.S. Representative Mark Souder's staff subsequently issued a report findng that the allegations of a hostile work envirionment and other retaliations including demotion were backed by "substantial, credible evidence."[13]


1. Three citations on this clause, two NPOV RS, one POV USHRCGR/McVey RS
2. One citation on this cluase, PBSW POV RS
3. One reference to facsimile, NPOV (at least for this facsimile) or POV OS Meyer RS
4. One citation on this cluase, NPOV RS
5. One citation on this cluase, NPOV RS quoting POV OS
6. One citation on this cluase, NPOV RS quoting POV OS, backed by recording
7. One citation on this cluase POV RS, likely able to back up with other RS, not really disputed anyway, AFAIK.
8. One citation on this cluase POV RS, likely able to back up with other RS
9. One citation on this cluase, NPOV RS
10. Two NPOV RS, one POV RS, notes on why letter and report are obviously the same thing. Another contributor had insisted that it be referred to as a letter, and the footnote explaination explains why this other contributor is in fact correct. I identified the report as a letter and added the note at the other contributors suggestion, and I don't think this is in disputee.
11. Two NPOV RS, on POV RS
12. One NPOV RS, recorded and available for public
13. One POV RS

That's it. Please cite wikipedia policies that preclude the above NPOV contribution to an article that is (as one disinterested observer already noted) obviously written from the evolution POV. Please be civil. ImprobabilityDrive 02:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

As usual, ImprobabilityDrive is misrepresenting things. What we in fact have is two articles (one from the Washington Post and one from the NPR) that rely almost wholly on the OSC and Sternberg's partisan and unsubstantiated assertions (to the extent that the WP is entitled Editor Explains Reasons for 'Intelligent Design' Article, clearly disclaiming neutrality). This is neither notable nor NPOV, and thus no basis for seeking the restoration of this subsection. Hrafn42 03:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
You are welcome to point me to other similar reliable sources that offer the gravitas of NPR and WP articles. I do not think wikipedia has a policy on contributors being able to dismiss on the basis of shoddy journalism established, NPOV, reliable sources like NPR and the WP, even if the contributor were a professor of journalism. Also, Ms. Scott, who consulted with the Smithsonian, according to one of the articles, had her say, as did the PBSW. There is balance here. Do you have other references of official Smithsonian responses? Do you think that a journalist should not report even when one of the subjects refuses to comment? The information is notable, reported, and suitable for wikipedia. Please do not say I am misrepresenting things while you imply that the established journalist Michael Powell who wrote the article Washington Post artilce, and who utilized multiple sources, also wrote the headline. It is common knowledge that headlines are not written by the journalists who write the articles. ImprobabilityDrive 03:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Dr Scott was not addressing the wider controversy, merely the OSC's wildly exaggerated allegations of NCSE collusion in the purported persecution of Sternberg. Who were these "multiple sources"? The WP article appears to be 90%+ from Sternberg + OSC, with the single paragraph on Scott's narrow rebuttal as the only explicit additional source. Why was no comment sought from Coddington, Hans-Dieter Sues, the Biological Society of Washington or from the wider scientific community? Why no balance? Hrafn42 04:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
She was addressing the Smithsonian/Sternberg controversy. The "wider controversy (read: peer-review spat)" is a tempest in the evolutionary scientists/ID pseudo-scientists blogosphere. "Who were these 'multiple sources'?" It looks like you answered for the Washington Post (I point this out in case you missed the three sources you listed), but your critique is not relevant. Sadly, you don't get to declare what is and what is not good journalism on wikipedia. The WP is a reliable source. So is the NPR article, which had, in addition to the WP sources you listed, even more sources (e.g., 18 academics/untenured professors who wished, out of fear of persecution and retaliation, to remain anonymous (they must be paranoids), as well as other academics who claimed to have suffered retaliation, as well as another academic (Behe, if I remember correctly) who has tenure and is unafraid of retaliation. Still, sadly, we don't get to declare, on an article by article basis, that sources are unreliable because, in the opinion of some wikipedians, the journalists did "shoddy job". But we're going nowhere, Hrafn42, why not let somebody else attempt to cite wikipedia policy. ImprobabilityDrive 04:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Numerous editors above have already stated that this is not notable, and deserves at best two lines. Hrafn42, I would suggest you do not make any further comments. If ImprobabilityDrive chooses to make further edits that require reverting, he has been put on notice not to engage in an edit war. No other editor agrees with any further verbiage related to this rather sad individual (that is Sternberg). Orangemarlin 04:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is claiming (at least I hope no one is claiming) that the Sternberg controversy is not notable. If they thought that, they would be AfDing that article. The question is whether it is notable enough to be given a section in the main article on the Creation-evolution controversy. When one compares the press coverage to any of the other included events such as Kitzmiller, it is very hard to see any justification for giving this much room here. That is the issue that must be dealt with. JoshuaZ 04:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. FM said this, "And I've removed it again: The Sternberg peer review controversy is a vanishingly minor issue in comparison to the trials." I think it's as close as you're going to get to not being notable as you're going to get. Orangemarlin 04:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
FM was clearly talking about its notability relative to the trials, not its absolute notability. Hence his use of the phrase "...in comparison to..." Hrafn42 05:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
This proposal has already been widely rejected by the community as not significant enough for inclusion in comparison to larger events. Reintroducing it once again confirms and compounds the allegations that ImprbabilityDrive is being a disruptive editor. FeloniousMonk 05:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On the move to the Sternberg subpage

Please undo this move. As you are an active participant in the discussion, and the discussion was in fact active (and making progress), you moving my comments, and those of others, is in dispute. ImprobabilityDrive 05:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but no. Your reintroduction of this topic already widely rejected is disruptive to the point that it prevents other discussions that are more constructive. You've been warned already about rejecting community input and consensus, and how that can be seen as disruption when done wilfully, and yet you chose to ignore it. This page is sufficient and adequate for discussing a proposal that has very little chance of making it back onto the page. FeloniousMonk 05:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


Before the move, I tried to add the following, but it was disrupted by FeloniousMonk's move.

(responding to OM) FM doesn't own the article. Neither do you. Neither does a group of similarly minded editors supported by like minded admins. If you want to start an article on the Creation-evolution trials, you may. I'll even help you do it. The trials deserve 3 paragraphs at best, in total. They always turn out the same (seperation of church and state prevails). Details can be provided in the sub-articles. The Sternberg/Smithsonian controversy is notable, as evidence by the national press coverage. It is part of the controversy. It describes significant issues regarding freedom of speech, freedom of religion, persecution (or perceived persecution) of academics and scientists who do not toe the modern-synthesis line. ImprobabilityDrive 05:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)