Talk:Richard Sternberg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.
Creationism Portal
This article is supported by the Intelligent design WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to Intelligent design-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Archive
Archives


[edit] Opening Paragraph

The opening paragraph states the controversy behind R. Sternberg's handling of the editing process but does not explain both sides of the controversy, taking a anti-Sternberg point of view. By definition, controversy requires two or more sides to exist in disagreement, as such I've taken the liberty of elaborating on the controversy with the inclusion of the following text to the end of the paragraph: "Conversely, Sternberg claimed that he followed the standard peer review process for publication of the article and consulted with several qualified parties before accepting the paper for publication." I've included a reference to Sternberg's own website explaining his position on the controversy. I believe this presents a clearer picture for the reader and helps to correct the existing bias of the paragraph. As a community, are there any thoughts, negative or otherwise about this change? I've already come into conflict with several contributors, none of who are willing to discuss the matter. --Novan Leon (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Novan asked me for some advice on this, which I've provided on his talk page - based on the edit summaries I saw, this would seem to be a brief summary of why the edits keep getting reverted. Correct me if I'm wrong, of course, but be aware I don't plan to become too involved in this. I will keep an eye on things as needed, but that's about it.
"Looking at the article history, it would seem that one of the reasons people are reverting your edit is because of the reference - while it is good that you're providing one, it needs to be from a third-party site, not affiliated with Wikipedia or Mr. Sternberg. Also, WP:NPOV does not means that you have to "balance" an article with pro- and con- points of view: giving undue weight to a minority concern can alter the neutrality of an article significantly. For example, if 9 out of 10 dentists say that Crest toothpaste is the best brand, you may want to mention that dentist #10 doesn't say so, but there's no need to explain in too much detail why he feels that way, or mention which brand he considers to be the best (or why). Based solely on edit summaries, those seem to be the main reasons, however a discussion on the matter would certainly help out. Just remember, don't keep fighting over it during the discussion - let a consensus come out, then act accordingly."
Best of luck. Hersfold (t/a/c) 15:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to provide some perspective as to why I think my suggested changes are warranted. My primary concerns are two-fold.
(1) Concerning the R. Sternberg controversy, in this instance there doesn't appear to be a clearly established majority/minority opinion on the issue (ie. that Richard Sternberg circumvented the usual peer review process). In order to censor the inclusion of both sides of the controversy in the initial paragraph on the basis of undue weight, I would like to see references supporting this position. As it is, there is only R. Sternberg's word versus that of the journal's publisher with a massive influx of people taking either side purely based on the subject matter involved and not around the accuracy of either side's statements.
(2) The reference supporting the journal's position (ref #2) appears to be taken directly from one of the the party's involved. While this may make the most sense given the nature of the controversy, I believe it is also important to present the other side of the controversy (rather, it makes little sense NOT to).
(3) An additional concern of mine is readability. The first time I read through the initial paragraph, I was a little confused as to what the controversy was about. I knew there was some questionable handling of the publishing process involved but it did not strike me as a controversial ordeal, merely that he had done something wrong and then released. Only upon learning that Sternberg had staunchly refuted the publisher's claims and there was some question about harrasment, etc, did it make sense to be called a controversy. This is also related to the the proposed addition for "is best known for" to help clarify matters for the casual reader.
I'd love to hear additional input on this from other members. Thanks. --Novan Leon (talk) 19:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
One of the problems with WP is the policy about reliable sources. Stuff taken from self-published sources is not accepted by the WP community, and will always be reverted. There are other consequences - truth and accuracy sometimes lags behind published sources. Maybe in the future the discussion about his peer review will make it to some other publishing source, at which point WP can include it. Dan Beale-Cocks 21:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Please read WP:RS, WP:V and WP:A and reconsider your concerns in light of these policies and guideline. FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Four things:
1. The reference is concerning R. Sternberg's opinion. I can provide a third party source for this opinion but the original source would still be the man himself. The ultimate source for any opinion is the individual. Would simply providing a third party source that references R. Sternberg's opinion be a more acceptable reference over quoting him directly? It doesn't seem so to me. After all, we are dealing with a clash of unverifiable claims made by two separate parties (hence, the controversy). If we were to take the WP:RS guidelines to their full extent, there would be nothing to talk about in this case, as very little has been verified by third party research concerning this case.
2. Similar information is included in the body of the article with a similar reference (ref #12), so I believe this change to be consistent with the flavor of the rest of the article.
3. Reference #2 is taken from a party directly involved in the controversy and makes several statements about the subjects handling of the controversy that is unverifiable.
4. Rather than removing the first party statements on both sides of the controversy, for the sake of the reader, doesn't it make more sense to summarize both opposing viewpoints surrounding the controversy? --Novan Leon (talk) 14:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)