Talk:Natural Resources Stewardship Project

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Moved from main page by JQ


Yesterday I sent the following e-mail to the editors of Wikipedia to have the above corrected - no response as of 13:30 EST October 24, 2006 so I upload the letter to help people understand what is real and what is not about NRSP: - - ________________________________________ - From: Tom Harris [1] - Sent: October 23, 2006 11:59 PM - To: 'info-en-q@wikimedia.org' - Subject: mistake and bias on your Web site concerning our organization - - Dear Sir or Madam, - - There are several blatant errors in your description of our new organization I request be corrected immediately, please: - - URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Resources_Stewardship_Project - - Says: - “The Natural Resources Stewardship Project is a Canadian non-profit organization presenting itself as undertaking "A proactive grassroots campaign to counter the Kyoto Protocol and other greenhouse gas reduction schemes while promoting sensible climate change policy." It is headed by lobbyist Tom Harris and global warming skeptic Tim Ball. It replaces an earlier organisation Friends of Science. - The NSRP has been criticised as an Astroturf organization [1].” - - 1 – I am not a lobbyist and never have been. Media have asked me about this as they have not found my name identified on the lobby registration. I have explained that is because I am not a lobbyist and main stream media have accepted that and do not make the mistake on your site. - - 2 – It has nothing to do with Friends of Science which I imagine continues as before (you would have to ask them). - - 3 – Yes, we have been criticized as an “Astroturf organization” by a group whose stated purpose is to discredit scientists and organizations who disagree with their point of view on climate change – why would you use this strange source for your Web site instead of, say, the Edmonton Journal, who described us as “a new non-profit organization that seeks to promote "sensible environmental and natural resources policies based on science, engineering and economics" (see http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/opinion/story.html?id=e749cc60-2e9d-4326-be3a-afdcd3a1a83a)? - - Sincerely, - - Tom Harris, B. Eng., M. Eng. (thermofluids) - Executive Director - Natural Resources Stewardship Project - P.O. Box 23013 - Ottawa, Ontario K2A 4E2 - - e-mail: tom.harris@nrsp.com - Web: www.nrsp.com


Just to clarify, you're not the Tom Harris who's associated with the High Park Group? He claims the same qualifications as you [2] and offers direct lobbying services [3]. For the moment, I've deleted the description of you as a lobbyist in view of your objection, but unless there's some kind of mistaken identity here, it will go back in. JQ 03:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Looks like you didn't get it the first time - here is my answer to you again

As before, "I am not a lobbyist and never have been. Media have asked me about this as they have not found my name identified on the lobby registration. I have explained that is because I am not a lobbyist and main stream media have accepted that and do not make the mistake on your site."

Also, unless you are biased against us, you should highlight the fact that we ahve received good and bad coverage and so I added that to your description.

This isn't an answer. I assume that you are the Tom Harris associated with the High Park Group, in which case that information should be reported. JQ 05:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the desmogblog link since it is misplaced being listed in the list of complimentary media coverage.

[edit] Removed reference to "sucker punching" a female reporter, which is clearly offensive, inflammatory and incorrect

The "Sucker Punch" comment is also listed in the wrong list, that list supposedly reserved for complimentary media coverage.

[edit] Suggested external link

I'm associated with this website, but believe it an appropriate and unique source regarding the NRSP's background and associations. Wikipedia guidelines prevent me from posting it as an external link, so I propose it here for a neutral party to consider: http://www.desmogblog.com/the-fanciful-world-of-the-friends-of-science.

Dbarefoot 18:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

If you mean The fanciful world of the "Friends of Science", I skimmed it just now. What's the connection to NRSP? Are you saying one project is the successor of the other, and that you disagree with FOS's critique of global warming science? --Uncle Ed 09:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Funding controversy

Cut from article:

The NSRP has been criticised as act of Astroturfing. [citation needed] Harris rejects this criticism but refuses to reveal the sources of its funding. [4]. NSRP has been complimented in other coverage. [5] and [6]

I guess what our editors are trying to say here is that some advocates question the project's reliance on tainted sources like Big Oil and want to make the point that NRSP is "beholden to the energy interests and can therefore be dismissed, they are not objective but in the pay of Big Oil". Our task as editors would be to find a statement like that and quote it, as well as any opposing points of view.

Our readers may also be interested in any specific statements about natural resources the project has made. Does NRSP have a position on conserving forests, reducing CO2 emissions, or anything like that? --Uncle Ed 09:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Some blogger in Canada made the association between NSRP and astroturfing. Should we call him pro-AGW blogger Joe Blow or PR agency president or just give his name in double square brackets, so readers can click on him for more info?
I appreciate the cite, but "has been cricised as" are classic weasel words. See also Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words.
  • "(Critics, detractors, fans, experts, many people, scholars, historians, ...) contend, say that ..."
I'm not asking for the mention of astroturfing to be taken out. It actually sounds like astroturfing to me, and anyway astroturfing is too cool a word to omit! If wanted it out, I would have deleted it, instead of doing a Wikipedia:text move.
I like following policy, and if we disagree on how to apply it we should discuss that - which is much better than accusing others of "pretending not to know", wouldn't you say? --Uncle Ed 21:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Cut from article:

The NSRP has been criticised as act of Astroturfing.[1]

I don't know why FeloniousMonk (1) deleted the attrib tag or, worse, (2) reverted it on the grounds that was "misused". The purpose of the tag is to alert editors to a Weasel word, and "has been critised as" is an example of weasel words.

To make it more clear: the reason we have a policy or guideline against weasel words is that it doesn't say WHO (in this case) criticized the group. Whether it's only their viewpoint or not is not the problem; it's just an awkward sentence.

The article should either state outright that NRSP engaged in astroturfing, or say that Jim Hoggan (or whoever is mentioned in the ref) offered the criticism.

Unless other editors feel that this particular case of weasel words has a good reason to go against conventions, in which case I'd like to know what justifies the exception to the rule.

Hint:

  • NSRP claimed to be grassroots.
  • (Blank) said it's not grassroots, but just a front.
  • (Source) said this situation is a good example of astroturfing, because while they claim to be grassroots they are really just a PR campaign by a special interest group.

I'm spending so much time on it, because several articles suffer from the same sloppy writing. Encyclopedia writing should not be sloppy, but crisp and brisk and to the point. Readers should not have to (1) click on a footnote and then (2) follow that footnote offsite, and read somebody's blog, just to find out that Jim Hoggan thinks NRSP astroturfed. Why not just say it in the text? --Uncle Ed 23:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

  • By the way, the reason I cut the same thing twice is that the first time I had the wrong tag: {cn} or {fact} was not correct, because I don't feel the fact is "in dispute" or even questionable. It was a matter of writing style. The writing seemed sloppy[who?] - oops, better to say I thought the writing looked sloppy.
  • I created the new {weasel word} tag just for this type of thing, where the problem is not lack of backup for the assertion, but lack of a subject for the sentence, i.e., we don't know who is making the assertion.
  • We could just as easily say that foxes are considered a danger to livestock[who?] - but our readers would be curious about what sort of people thing so. Better to say farmers consider foxes a danger to livestock. That would satisfy the question raised by the {attrib} tag. The reader would then think, "Well of course farmers would object to foxes." --Uncle Ed 23:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The {weasel word} tag is totally inappropriate here. It concerns euphemisms, and you are arguing about active versus passive voice. On the general point, a Google search for NRSP+Astroturf shows that this criticism has been made many times. So, unless you want a long list, it's better to make the general statement and pick one source. However, if you prefer we could write something like "The NRSP has been criticised on many occasions as an act of Astroturfing. A partial list of those making this or similar criticisms of the NRSP as an industry-funded body includes ...." JQ 01:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the only source for that criticism I've been able to find is blogger Jim Hoggan, who called it:

"a classic example of an astroturf group - a surprisingly well-funded PR team that presents itself as a grassroots organization."

I'm thinking of a full rewrite, because:

  1. It apparently no longer exists.
  2. Establishing a "proactive grassroots campaign" was only one of its initiatives - and I think you and I would agree that establishing and grassroots contradict each other.
  3. Their main aim was to criticize the Kyoto Protocol
  4. The strongest criticism against the group was that it was pro-industry, and that critics guessed it was industry-funded, too.
    • If this means that critics suspected an ulterior motive or a lack of objectivity due to industry funding, then the article should say so.

Please fix this article. --Uncle Ed 01:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Will doJQ 03:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)