Talk:Sierra Club

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

The previous version singled out one among many Sierra Club policies (restore Hetch Hetchy) and mentioned one of the reasons to oppose that policy (San Francisco need for drinking water). My reaction as a first-time visitor was that it violated NPOV. I expanded the discussion of the policy to show that SC isn't indifferent to SF drinking water. Reference to dams "in California" deleted because SC has opposed dams across the country. I also added a sentence re SC governance. JamesMLane 21:34, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It should be noted that john muir was a preservationist, not a conservationist. A good parrallel between the two would be free software and open source. Here is a comparison between the two: http://greennature.com/article467.html.

        Okay well since no one else seems to want to fix it i will

The distinction as you draw it is not commonly accepted. Muir is often referred to as a preservationist but is even more often referred to as a conservationist. I'm restoring "conservationist" but I'll leave in "preservationist" because it's not inaccurate. JamesMLane 19:19, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

Should the article mention the Sierra Club's loss of its tax exempt status for engaging in political activity in 1966? --Blackeagle 17:34, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Certainly. The article should have more history material. Cheers, -Willmcw 03:57, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] immigration reform info keeps getting deleted

please help!!!!

Best thing to do is first ask the person in question on their talk page, as to me it looks like a content dispute rather than vandalism on either side. It may be that Will Beback thinks it's simple vandalism (hence the lack of explaination in the edit summary) as someone called "won't be back" previously inserted the same information. PS. the citation link at the end is broken, you've got an extra "|2" in there somewhere.

In any case, reverting back and forth (see WP:3RR) isn't going to help figure out why each other object to the addition/removal of the text. MartinRe 18:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

It could also be a question of notibility and/or potential pov issues. I've done a quick search and allI could find was that the "takeover" canditates got less than 2% of the vote[1] From what I've seen in the search results on this topic, it looks highly charged in the sense that both sides view are far from a npov, making claims and counter claims. I would question the notibility of the election, most elections I've seen have groups that run on a certain issue, but unless they get a substantinal amount of the vote, I woulnd't regard it as particularlly notable. Also, adding a comment about a topic that got that little of the actual vote, might be seen as pushing that pov. MartinRe 18:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the controversy was notable. It was mentioned in the mainstream press [2][3]. The President of the Sierra Club board was quoted as saying that "this entire debate is distracting and keeping us away from our primary focus in order to deal with squabbles like this". It sounds like the controversy definitely affected the club, and deserves at least a mention in the article.

How to handle it in an NPOV way is another issue. Reversion is probably not the correct strategy. -- hike395 22:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree reversion is not the correct strategy, but how to deal with it in a npov is tough. From my brief searches to try and get background most results were either very pro or very anti, I don't envy trying to find the middle line. However, as a UK/Irish person that has never heard of either, I offer myself as a sort of somewhat sort of middle ground/sounding board, if needed. MartinRe 23:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

One step toward neutrality would be to pick neutral terminology. Immigration "reform" makes it sound like a good thing and is biased against the position of the majority of the Sierra Club Board of Directors. Some of those people referred to their adversaries as "anti-immigration", which those so characterized denied; thus, using that term would be POV in the other direction. I suggest referring to the issue as "immigration reduction", which seems both accurate and neutral. JamesMLane t c 00:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dams and nuclear

• Decomissioning of dams will affect power and water supplies for entire populations, leading to dirtier and less effective means of power production. The easiest solution, burning Coal and other fossil fuels, leads to air pollution and water contamination [[4]]. Solar power is many times more expensive than other forms of energy production and is NOT without pollution when the production of the solar cells is taken into consideration. Nuclear power, which the Sierra Club [opposes], is the only sensible solution. No air or water pollution is emitted, and the fuel rods can be reprocessed, reducing the amount of [waste] to be stored. The remaining spent fuel can be safely buried where it came from. Underground. Even the French have a strong nuclear program [[5]] and they are a net exporter of electricity.

This text, by user:Plainvanilla, does not describe the subject. Rather, it is an argument about the subject's policies. As editors, we should not write original arguments. Our job is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. So if we can find a notable critic who says something like, "The Sierra Club foolishly ignores nuclear power", then we use that as a reference. But we can't add it just because we think it is true. -Will Beback 06:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Prior to my edit, nuclear power was not even mentioned in the Sierra Club page at all. Unless this page is simply a promotional tool for the Sierra Club, major policies and effects of those policies should be mentioned, especially when such positions have such wide reaching effects. An edit would have been appropriate, not removal....Plainvanilla, July 11, 2006

It would be appropriate to give the Sierra Club's position on nuclear power. It is not appropriate to give your opinion of nuclear power, or to add facts about its use in other countries. Note that the organization has positions on numerous topics. I suppose we could do a better job of listing them all. -Will Beback 04:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I stated the Sierra Club's opinions (a.k.a. positions) on nuclear power. I also mentioned the use in France to emphasize that it IS a viable technology. Not using it DOES have large implications to the environment in the form of requiring greater usage of more polluting technologies. Since all the positions are not listed, its appropriate to exclude this MAJOR one? My reference to the Sierra Club's OWN page was even removed. Balance requires that criticism and praise both be listed.

Nuclear power is not just one of the "positions on numerous topics" but is a MAJOR postition that they have taken.

Stop editing the truth, otherwise this truly is just a promotional page for the Sierra Club.

Plainvanilla July 11, 2006

I've added an NPOV summary of the group's position. Neither the cost of nuclear power in France, nor the price of tea in China, are the subjects of this article. I'd have to go check but I'd guess that the Sierra Club's policy on energy proposes using less of it. -Will Beback 07:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The "price of tea in China"? I mentioned only relevant information. No need to insult my contributions. On the other hand, your edits of my information are based on your currently held opinion, rather than clicking on a simple link (provided above). "I'd have to go check but I'd guess...." That really doesnt seem like its in the spririt of attaching attributions to support your statements. I will add NPOV historical or current facts to the article. Not guesses.