Talk:Smithsonian-Sternberg affair

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Hello. Just a little something I wrote. Very reliable references coming. HeartOfGold 19:19, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Opinions

Not sure if the opinion section belongs, or if the article needs expanding. Also, I don't know if I should add the following, because, although it is documentable, I don't know if any second parties have made the observation:


The Smithsonian Controversy is often characterized as the Smithsonian Peer Review Controversy in the evolutonist blogosphere.

Peer review controversy: misnomer? Spin?

I think the "Peer review Controversy" may be a tempest in the evolutionary blogosphere. The mainstream press did not cover it as a "peer review controversy". (Clarification: to the best of my memory.) Consequently, I think the term is a misnomer, although I understand that, at least on the internet, this is what it known by (in the context of the creation-evolution controversy). Yet I think this is spin, and in fact was a red herring by anti-ID scientists that has stuck on the internet. I will look into this further, but would appreciate other's perspectives. Given my ideas, it seems that the peer review controversy should be a sub-section of the Smithsonian-Sternberg affair. HeartOfGold 23:36, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Maybe, for the sake of google, we can have a seperate article on the "improper or no peer review allegations". (Should be called peer review conspiracy theory, as that is what seems to be to me.) The publisher has only gone on record as alleging a process that was not "typical" because it did not including an associate editor in the peer review process--but others in the evolutionary blogosphere have alleged improper or no peer review, and have even mischaracterized the very clear reading of the official statement of the publisher. The problem with the peer-review controversy is, however, that it relies heavily on BS sites the pandasthumb and talkorigins, whereas the current article ignores those sites as they should not, in my opinion, be given any credibility. Even so, there are allegations that the publisher and/or the Smithsonian tried to compel the identification of the normally anonymous peer-reviewers. After listening to the NPR documentary, it's no wonder they wished to remain anonymous. HeartOfGold 23:54, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
A lot of scientists choose to lie low, when the political furor around their work heats up. A U.S. state climatologist or two was recently threatened with demotion or job loss for criticizing the anthropogenic global warming theory. --Ed Poor 00:05, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
I think we should create a second article on the peer review "controversy" aspects--for the sake of google traffic. However, I do think the name is a misnomer hyped up by evolutionary scientists in order to discredit both Sternberg and ID. Regarding the academic freedom issues Ed raises--good points! HeartOfGold 02:07, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Removed harvard reference templates; replaced with poor-man's harvard referencing system that I "invented" (doesn't use computationally intensive templates)

I removed reliance of harvard referencing templates I added today because I suspect they may be responsible for the server crashing a few times today. In the process, I undid some edits. I apologize for this, but for the good of the project, I don't think we should be using the templates until we get the details on copyright and computational intensity worked out. HeartOfGold 02:06, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

I have been informed that the server has not crashed, and have since determined it might have been a problem with my browser timing out. Even so, I am keeping the poor mans harvard referencing schemes pending discussions on suitable templates. HeartOfGold 13:15, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
Personal tools