Talk:Union of Concerned Scientists

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Sorry about the multiple edits. I'm not trying to start an edit war, I'm just attempting to make a readable article that maintains NPOV. I think the recent edits critical of the UCS are very helpful and are needed to give a balenced viewpoint of the organization. I moved the section on positions forward in the article because I felt that was what a reader would be most likely to be looking for when they read the article, not because I was trying to "bury" the name question. Sayeth 15:56, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

I've got no problems with your edits (or multiple edits in general). In fact, I think they make the article better. Well done. Sorry I didn't document the changes I made here but I felt they were relatively straightforward. No edit war from where I sit. This is the way wiki articles get better, right? I wish more people took your balanced approach to editing. I don't mean to gush but I'm dealing with some difficult people over on some other pages and it is a relief to deal with something who behaves sensibly. Now that I've got that out of my system...  ;-> --JonGwynne 18:29, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I made an edit, adding the term 'advocacy' to the summary line, as I think it improves the POV a bit to note that the UCS is an organization that takes political positions (even though you only had to read a couple lines to get there ;-). stancollins 05 April 2005


Contents

[edit] Leftist

You object to calling them leftists (though they demonstrably are) but provide nothing to support your objections. Why is this? --JonGwynne 20:16, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay, since neither of you appear to be letting up, how about this: Instead of labeling UCS a leftist organisation in the intro, why don't we let the reader make up their mind themselves? We already have a paragraph on the policy positions of the UCS, so we could simply mention that these positions are aligned with the position of some (but not all) leftist (or liberal, or progressive, etc) ideologies. I'll go ahead and be bold, and you two can fight it out, if that's what you really want to do. Sayeth 13:45, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
Why not just give the reader the opportunity to decide. The info is there and we don't need the POV and often misleading labels. Those abused labels are basically insulting to the reader. Vsmith 15:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Not in this case. In some cases, the political affiliation of something it one of its defining characteristics - like Ann Coulter or The Nation. It isn't "insulting" to describe something as what it is. The UCS is a leftist organization. It clearly isn't a right-wing one and it isn't non-partisan - that only leaves one other option. BTW, I'm a leftist and I don't consider the label insulting... --JonGwynne 16:24, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Insulting as in insulting the reader's intellegence. The article should (and does) define the organization and list associated causes and funding sources. Given that, the use of often misleading, POV, and abused labels is not needed. Vsmith 16:47, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
And yet, in this case, leftist is neither POV nor abused, so what's your objection? BTW, I could just as convincingly argue that to *not* describe the UCS as leftist is insulting to the reader's intelligence and undermines the credibility of the article. --JonGwynne 18:30, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Since no one had sumbitted any arguments as to why a leftist organization shouldn't be described as a leftist organization, I'm returning the description. --JonGwynne 08:19, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Removed POV leftist from article - as discussed above. Vsmith 16:35, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

The only problem is that nowhere in the discussion above is the removal supported by any rational argument. The fact is that UCS is a leftist organization. Do you think they should not be described as such? If you you believe this, why can't you come up with any compelling argument to support your position? --JonGwynne 02:34, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

The article that leftist redirects to gives a vague meaning as ... terms that refer (with no particular precision) to the segment of the political spectrum typically associated with any of several strains of socialism, social democracy, or liberalism (especially but not exclusively in the American sense of the word), or with opposition to right-wing politics. Communism (as well as the Marxist philosophy that it relies on) and most currents of anarchism are considered to be radical forms of left-wing politics.
So - which are you implying here? communist? Marxist? anarchist? socialist? liberal?
Removed ill-defined term as unneeded POV. The list of supported or endorsed policies gives a sufficient definition of the organization. Vsmith 03:33, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm implying nothing. I am stating that the UCS is a leftist organization. No one has yet disputed this description. Why do you insist on removing an accurate description of the group? --JonGwynne 16:08, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't see anything "leftist" about it. Looks like a scientific organization to me. Only leftist I see is people wanting it to have that label to fit some personal agenda of theirs. --DanielCD 17:04, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
OK, let's try it this way... name for me one organization you consider to be leftist. --JonGwynne 18:17, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
The term hardly has any meaning any more because people use it to describe anything that doesn't fit their political agenda. It's become a pejorative term. People now use it to politicize things that aren't political so that they can bash them better. Once you make something political, everything becomes black and white and simple. The communist party, there's something that could be called leftist. Science is not leftist, but people who are desperate to fight its truths try to label it so so they can lump it in with other political garbage. It's a way of avoiding the truth, is deceitful. If you can't defeat science head on, make it political then you can bash it as if it's a political agenda and circumvent the facts altogether. Classic technique of all show and no substance. Make something look bad, look liberal, then you can convince people that something is "Bad" without letting them see the facts. Saying this is liberal is nonsense because scientific facts are facts whether they upset people or not. Let people see the facts and make up their own minds. --DanielCD 21:06, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
I beg your pardon? If what you say is true, then why would I describe myself as a leftist? And the UCS adgenda isn't a scientific one, it is political. They are an organization of scientists (and now the public) with a political viewpoint - and a left-leaning one at that. --JonGwynne 22:30, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
"include controls on pollution, reduction of nuclear weapons, a ban on weapons in space, federal regulation of biotechnology, and the protection of endangered species. The Union also encourages research on renewable energy, low-pollution vehicles, and sustainable agriculture."
What is "Liberal" about this? Where's the politics? These are legitimate areas of concern to any rational citizen and politics are irrelevant. Pollution reduction -liberal? protection of endangered species -liberal? A person can't be concerned about this things and not be pigeonholed into a label? Where exactly is the need to label this concern liberal? Why can't people make up their own minds? Do you want a political plug to try to manipulate people into seeing the article in a certain light? --DanielCD 21:12, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
I notice you left out their pushing of the Kyoto Accord for political rather than scientific reasons, their opposition to the appointment of "industry-friendly" scientists to positions within the government and their criticism of George W. Bush and his policies. These are quintessentially political moves and definitively leftist. I don't say that because I'm trying to demean these positions - I agree with them in fact (except for Kyoto, what a joke that is). --JonGwynne 22:30, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I think this excerpt of a letter (not mine) to the editor describes them well.

For those who don't know the background of the Union of Concerned Scientists, it is hardly an organization of well-meaning, politically neutral scientists, which is the impression the Chronicle hopes to convey. Rather, it is an activist political organization that supports MANY far-left political causes, and its membership is open to all (or at least all who want to send $25). Over the years, it has argued for nuclear disarmament (a political position, not a scientific one), it has argued against ballistic missile defense (a political position, not a scientific one), it has argued for the Kyoto Protocol (even though the Greenhouse theory remains hotly debated among environmental scientists and there is no scientific consensus that the political policy of the Kyoto protocol would have the intended effect), and it has a keen interest in population control. Further, the Union of Concerned Scientists draws funding from a number of organizations on the Left.

This is an organization of political activists, with membership that includes scientists (some of whom are, no doubt, perfectly reputable).

Now, I'm not about to argue that scientists are not entitled to their opinion on political matters, or that liberal activist groups are not entitled to argue in favor of preferred policies. Of course they are. However, liberal political activist organizations are not entitled any special deference on policy questions simply because they wisely chose a name that included “scientists” (and “concerned” ones at that)![1] --Tbeatty 01:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

  • So not only are they anti-arsenic, but they're also pushing that global warming stuff? I'll bet they're also pro-endangered species too? conservation, OMG, look at this headline on their website "In addition, beef and milk from animals raised entirely on pasture have higher levels than conventionally raised beef and dairy cattle of beneficial fats that may prevent heart disease and strengthen the immune system" strengthen the immune system?? but my immune system could be a terrorist?!?! What a bunch of leftists!!!! *shakes internet fist in anger*--205.188.117.7 01:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I am certainly not angry that they are leftist. Did you read the letter to the editor? It was about policies, not science. No one wants global warming, or nuclear weapons or dangerous farm products or dirty air. But the dispute isn't about that, it's about how best to solve these problems. For your particular example of beef and dairy, the benefit of the product has to be weighed against its cost. That is inherently a political policy decision. UCS advocates liberal solutions to these particular problems. --Tbeatty 01:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Liberal solutions? Like not ignoring things completly? how is "less arsenic in drinking water is good" an example of liberal bias? that's not political, that's an example of a politicized issue, a nice excuse to ignore a problem and write it off as politcal posturing--205.188.117.7 02:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Incidentally, when the science comes down hard on a particular side of the debate (as reality has a tendency to do), the motivation for following a particular course of action becomes a scientific one. So, e.g., we have removed mercury from our gas. It's just the right thing to do. We recognize that pollution is a market failure and tragedy of the commons. Whether a ballistic missile defense shield is cost-effective, given its stated goals, is not a political issue -- it's the conclusion of rational and honest argument. 128.54.68.37 18:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Language encouraging issue politicization has been used successfully by the GOP at least since Gingrich started running GOPAC. Many would say (myself included) that the left-right split is a false dichotomy set up to suspend objective consideration of issues by requiring that the reader immediately take sides, thus reframing issues of fact into ones of ideology, e.g. "The world is a sphere" ... "That's just your leftist opinion." It can also be easily used to pigeon-hole mainstream, accepted opinion and thus given undue prominence to "the other side" (the so-called evolution "debate" is a case in point). It is for these reasons that "leftist" should be left out. 128.54.68.37 18:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC) Leo

[edit] VSmith's persistent violation of wikipedia policies

I notice that VSmith is still persisting in his unlabelled, undocumented and unsupported reversions - in clear violation of the injunction in place on this page. If you're going to revert something you are required to support your reversion. So far you have not. Are you going to start soon or is this just another example of knee-jerk reversions of something you find personally objectionable but are unwilling or unable to discuss? --JonGwynne 02:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary injunction

Copied here from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/William M. Connolley and Cortonin#Temporary injunction:

Since revert wars between the Cortonin and William M. Connolley have continued through this arbitration, both users are hereby barred from reverting any article related to climate change more than once per 24 hour period. Each and every revert (partial or full) needs to be backed up on the relevant talk page with reliable sources (such as peer reviewed journals/works, where appropriate). Administrators can regard failure to abide by this ruling as a violation of the WP:3RR and act accordingly. Recent reverts by Cortonin [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] by William M. Connolley [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] Additional reverts by others involved in these revert wars may result in them joining this case.

--mav 22:50, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tides

I don't know very much about the Tides group. My guess is that someone who doesn't like the group is trying to paint everyone they ever sent money too with a broad brush. Its called guilt by association, in the US, as well as several other modern states, a person or an organization is innocent until proven guilty. If the Union did something they should not have done, or have misrepresented their purpose - one could make an accusation. But creating a link to a donor for spite is ridiculous. If Hitler rose from the grave and sent George W. Bush a fiver - would it then be fair to say that Hitler donated money to the Bush Campaign? - even if it is true, its irrelevent. If Tides supports unpopular positions, it doesn't mean they don't also support popular positions, and who to say why they supported the Union? So in short, that accusation needs more facts than mere existence to be relevent. Benjamin Gatti 02:52, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Picture

That picture is just bizarre; it's also only very tangientally related to the UCS. How about removing it? --128.32.198.103 20:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] people who don't explicitly agree with george bush

are obviously leftists, why else would they think they're more qualified to dictate environmental policy than him? only a leftist would do something like that--205.188.117.7 01:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UCS as a political organization that has supporters and detractors

I am readding my additions. UCS has detractors. Instead of reverting, please discuss what objections you have.--Tbeatty 02:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • That sums it up nicely--152.163.100.69 03:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I haven't used any of them as sources. And when I use an opinion, such as the "Ideological Spectrum Rating" I clearly spell out which organization (Capital Research Center) holds that opinion. They are substantial organization and have their own page on Wikipedia. Please explain why expressing "capital Research Centers" opinion and UCS is not allowed on Wikipedia? You also deleted information that I sourced to UCS including their opposition to using antibiotics in Livestock. Please edit what you don't like instead of reverting. --Tbeatty 04:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capital Research Center

They have an opinion and rating on UCS. They are a legitmate organization. While their conclusion should not be represented as fact, it is valid to express their opinion as long as it is cited as their opinion. This is done throughout Wikipedia (as are views by UCS) and is part of NPOV policy. Comments? --Tbeatty 04:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the mention of critiques of any organization should be included in that organization's article so long as the critiques are 1)notable and made by notable sources 2)not libelous and 3)don't overwhelm the factual content of the article. Sayeth 17:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Capital Research Center is a Right Wing organization, they have an agenda. This entry, if not outright eliminated, certainly shouldn't have the prominence in the article that it does. --dowser 04:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Some would say that UCS is a Left Wing Organization and has an agenda. since labels such as "liberal" or "left-wing" are opposed, sourcing an opinion by a notable organization is all that is left. --Tbeatty 15:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Nonprofit vs. Nonpartisan vs. Liberal

USC is certainly nonprofit, and should be labeled as such. I don't understand why it was removed before.

How about writing that while they're theoretically nonpartisan, their positions are usually considered to be on the liberal side of the political spectrum? I consider that to be both accurate and a good compromise. Ladlergo 15:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

non-profit was fine. It was replaced along the way. Not sure why. I deleted non-partisan as I think it doesn't describe them accurately. Certain users object to "liberal" or "left-wing" to be ascribed to anything associated with them. --Tbeatty 18:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what they call themselves, only what they are--Capitalister 21:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Capitalister, please stop adding "liberal" to the tag at the expense of non-disputed terms. They are certainly nonprofit, and they are certainly an advocacy group. That they are liberal is a result of their stances, not inherent; it is entirely possible that they could allign themselves with a Republican stance on a scientific issue. If you are not satisfied, please note the "radical left" tag in the second section, where it more properly belongs. Ladlergo 13:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I actually agree with you. THey are liberal. Unfortunately others don't agree with us. IT is therefore required to find otherwise to provide this information. THis is the reason I added the CRC rating. --Tbeatty 19:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't disagree that they're liberal, but I don't believe that the opening paragraph is the appropriate location for that. As I said, it's a result of their stances, and as such should be put in that section. Ladlergo 23:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New "Controversy" Section

There is no question that the UCS is a controversial group, and there's no reason that mentioning it can't be addressed in this article. The question is how to make it NPOV.

I think that although it's accurate to label the UCS as a "liberal" organization, they do not market themselves as such, so it is unfortunately POV to use the word "liberal" in the first sentence of the article.

However, I don't think there's a problem in citing one or two groups who do characterize the UCS as "liberal", since most people who are aware of the distinction between liberal and conservative would label them as such.

Personally I am an inclusionist, not an exclusionist. I don't have a problem listing the people who disagree with the UCS (and there are lots of them), but neither do I have a problem in rebuttals to UCS opponents. --FairNBalanced 08:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


Also, the article itself is very small, so I'm preemptively stating my position that I don't think this new section is "too long" --FairNBalanced 08:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../u/n/i/Talk%7EUnion_of_Concerned_Scientists_9872.html"