Talk:Stephen C. Meyer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	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] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	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. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents 1 Palm Beach Atlantic University??? 2 Scholarship to Cambridge 3 Biased Article 4 Debates section 5 Copied from Talk:KillerChihuahua

[edit] Palm Beach Atlantic University???

Dr. Meyer is no longer listed as a faculty member of Palm Beach Atlantic University. http://www.pba.edu/Academic/facultylistings.cfm#M

[edit] Scholarship to Cambridge

I have his dissertation in my hand, and it says that the scholarship he received was from the Rotary Club of Dallas.

[edit] Biased Article

This article needs to be tagged for it;s atheistic bias. There is a mean spirited tone to what is supposibly a neutral article.

Exactly how does it have an "atheistic bias"? The content you insist on deleting it neutral, factual, supported and relevant. It does not assert any facts that aren't attributed or supported. FeloniousMonk 22:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Debates section

This section really doesn't add anything to the article. Is it really necessary? FeloniousMonk 16:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copied from Talk:KillerChihuahua

• Stephen Meyer

I agree that it is relevant, but it is stated formerly in the "Peer review controversy" section. there is no need for duplication, other than to editorially discredit the paper. When listing papers in a "Sceintific Paper" section, it is sufficient to list the papers. Any questions about the quality or validity about the paper are addressed in a previous section.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Diggnate (talk • contribs) 18:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I will take another look. Please sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~). KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, it is relevant. The reader may not realize this is the paper mentioned in the controversy section above. I would support a re-wording, perhaps, but the way it was without the information, it read as though it had been published. It is misleading to the reader. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I would support a reference to the [edit]controversy, i.e. leave the blurb that says "see:Sternberg peer review controversy"

--Diggnate 18:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• END copied content *

I removed the duplicated info, but left the blurb referring to the Sternberg peer review controversy

You have not gained any support for this change. Please stop making it until and unless there is some kind of consensus for it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)