Talk:Union of Concerned Scientists

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Genetics This article is part of WikiProject Genetics, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to genetics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this page, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating.

Contents

[edit] multiple edits

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)

[edit] advocacy org

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


[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

    • I dispute your source #10 in the "criticism" section on the grounds that it is a non-peer-reviewed, seemingly personal web page. I am open to criticism of the UCS if it is from a respected source. A website whose tagline is "Documenting and Exposing the Liberal Political Agenda of the New York Times" hardly seems in a position to criticize the objectivity of others.

[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)


And we all know that truth has a well-known liberal bias. Your so-called "notable organization" is not notable by any standards in the scientific community. Or is the whole scientific community "radically left-wing" now? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.104.174.179 (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2007 (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)

Reality has a well know leftist bias. Delirium of disorder 01:08, 6 January 2007 (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)


[edit] My personal (and professional) experince w UCS Section

I do not KNOW exactly what UCS is - politically. However, from my experience they play politics and word games A LOT. Some years ago I was making a (3 billion dollar) proposal summary to the board of my corporation. With that kind of money on the line I expected to be savagely attacked even if it was diablo advocatum. I wanted to use some data from UCS. However, I wanted to be prepared to justify using UCS. So, I sent a letter to UCS - no response. I phoned. My question was: What is the percentage breakdown of your membership by scientist, technical, other? I was told flat out that their membership rolls were private. Could I get a breakdown? Well they wouldn't waste their time doing it.

Now, common sense tells us that if UCS was 100% scientists, they would be screaming it from the rooftops. Their credibility would (justifiably) soar. If UCS were 0% scientist, they would hide that datum like it was sacred.

I don't know the correct percentage. Draw you own conclusions. 71.197.106.123 00:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think that you miss the point. All you have to do is read their website to see that they have open membership, which means that UCS members could be anything from scientists to single moms. As a member, one is supporting the agenda of a Union of Concerned Scientists, not pledging to be a scientist or to become one. Just like many groups, UCS's supporters/members don't make their policy, they merely fund it. Athene cunicularia 20:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Membership does not imply scholarship. The non-scientist "members" of the UCS do not contribute to publications. Being a Republican Party member does not make you a politician, yet to say "the Republican Party is not 100% politicians, and thus all Republican Party pamphlets have no political basis" would sound ridiculous, no? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.104.174.179 (talk) 14:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC).
I think the point is subtly different. Why do they hide (and they did) their scientist percentage? If they have two scientists, they are semantically correct in calling themselves "union of concerned scientists" (plural) and they would lose a LOT of veracity. I doubt the situation is that extreme, but if they have hundreds of "scientists" and most of those are lab technicians involved in biometrics (or something) then they lose a lot of influence when the speak about more hard technical stuff (like atomics, computers, etc.). I just want to know "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". When someone deliberately hides something, I get suspicious. I may be wrong, but I'm still suspicious.71.197.106.123 16:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
The fact that anyone can sign up should be enough to answer your question. If everyone can sign up, but not everyone is a scientist, then not everyone must be a scientist. Again, if you look at some of their material, you will see that their goal is to base their policies on science or scientific findings, not require that everyone has written 5 scholarly articles. A lot of people pull the liberal card because UCS sometimes values environmental protections over profit $, but guess what? Environmental Science and Ecology are science too, too.Athene cunicularia 13:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I still wonder. Since you have presented such good reasons, I see no reason for them to be so secretive about their membership percentages.71.197.106.123 02:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:UCSlogo.jpg

Image:UCSlogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crit Revision

I had tried to consolidate and clarify the crit section because the most recent revision jumped around with the sources cited. I did not omit any info that was previously included. I had tried to leave the sources intact, but accidentally removed the one by Capital Research Center. I'll re-insert it. I intentionally removed the aside about "pro tobacco, pro meat, etc. lobbying group" because I don't think that it has much relevancy. The aside seems intended more to characterize the source of the quote, but I think that the existing information is sufficient to show that the critics are also openly biased.Athene cunicularia 15:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with it now, I changed the wording around slightly and removed the word pro since that is subjective. --Theblog 02:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
That sounds good. Thanks!Athene cunicularia 10:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I cleaned up the crit section again. I think that it would be best to keep it simple, to avoid having to get into the lengthy backgrounds of both the UCS and its critics. The crit section should be straightforward and list the claims, but not appear overtly biased in itself.Athene cunicularia 19:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stossel

To Andyvphil: It's clear that you want to include Stossel's quote somewhere on Wikipedia, from the heated discussion on Stossel's page to the repeated reverts here. Stossel's criticism is welcome here. However, your additions can be improved.

  • First, I tried to remove parts that seemed out of context (like the vague reference to technology and military). That edit was reverted.
  • I also tried to add context to the technology and military reference, but that too was reverted.
  • I have also tried to include some reference to global warming, since Global Warming is the EXACT subject that Stossel is discussing in the article in which he criticizes UCS. You have also removed this as "poisoning the well" (a rationale that you've used before), even though the first sentence of Stossel's op-ed is: "I've been getting lots of e-mail about my column on the environmental crisis of the moment, global warming," and it's clear that Stossel is criticizing the UCS mainly for their stance on this issue.

Your repeated reversions without constructive justification make it seem like you're just trying to promote Stossel, but I'm sure that this isn't the case. I'm going to edit the section so that Stossel's opinion is in context. Please let me know here in Talk if you have a better idea. Thanks!Athene cunicularia 21:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall using the rationale "poisoning the well" before -- can you provide a diff to jog my memory? It is, however, what I see being attempted here. If you wanted to go into Stossel's disagreement with UCS, these are the words you need to include: "I didn't deny that [global] warming was a 'scientific reality.'...The earth has warmed about one degree in the past 100 years. Climate changes. It always has... The real question is whether the warming is a 'crisis,' and whether trying to 'fix' it will help or just wreck the lives of the poor.", not merely "Stossel says global warming is "the crisis of the moment", which is too damn close to the JFK,Jr. lie that Stossel is one of "these Flat Earthers, these corporate toadies, lying to you, lying to the American public, and telling you that global warming doesn't exist...." Or to the misrepresentation thatStoseel complains about, that the statement, "The Pew Center on Global Climate Change and the Union of Concerned Scientists both also note a 'strong consensus' among climate researchers that global warming is a scientific reality" somehow indicated that he had ignored basic science.
But providing a nuanced statement of Stossel's policy disagreements with UCS seems an unnecessary digression in the "Criticism" section of this article. His crit of UCS is triggered by a misrepresentation of his differences with UCS over GW, but his actual criticisms (that UCS's name makes an unwarranted claim to scientific authority while in fact it is more Left than scientific) is NOT "criticizing the UCS mainly for their stance on this issue[GW]." Nor does his comment that UCS' "own website reveals that it developed out of a campaign to make students think that strengthening the American military was an illegitimate use of technology" need replacement with uncertain explication that repeats material from the History section. Andyvphil 14:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how you can cite an article about global warming without including something about GW in your quotation. Stossel is only criticizing the UCS because he believes that their stance on GW is not science, but politics-based. Why are you so afraid to include Stossel's opinion on the subject in your quote?Athene cunicularia 18:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
If you change it again, I'm going to ask for admin intervention.Athene cunicularia 18:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I see that you didn't simply revert, though I wouldn't know that from your edit comment. Nor will I, but I am going to change it again, so if you don't like it, go ahead and ask. It is simply unacceptable that in citing an article wherein Stossel complains that his position is misrepresented that we should nonetheless state his position in a way consistent with those misrepresentations.
I am not afraid to include Stossel's opinion of GW. I think it appears quite sensible. But saying only that he says its the "environmental crisis of the moment", while true, does not express that opinion. We don't talk about what triggered Bozell's comment, and have only UCS' characterization of Singer, so I don't see why we would go to inconsistent depth about Stossel. But, I'll add a more appropriate parenthetical, since you insist.
The subject of the article, btw, is not GW, but the reaction to a previous article on GW. And, no we need not mention that because it is irrelevant to the criticism of UCS that Stossel makes in passing, which is what is relevant here. The disagreement over GW triggers his comments about GW, but it is not true that "Stossel is only criticizing the UCS because he believes that their stance on GW is not science, but politics-based." He says that their stance on everything is not science, but politics-based.
This article is not so long that a reader will have trouble finding the History section if he is unclear as to what Stossel means by saying UCS began as a campaign against American military technology. Assuming ICS' website talks about what happened between '69 and '77 it would be a positive step to add that material to this article there rather than incorporate it in the Crit section. Andyvphil 22:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for helping to better incorporate Stossel's criticism into the article. I am satisfied with the current version.Athene cunicularia 23:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Falwell

How many times do you have to make the same criticism in an article?Athene cunicularia (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not making the criticism, merely supplying evidence that it is on point. That the credulous (Falwell, in this case) are in fact misled -- that Stossel, etc., are not merely supposing something happens that does not -- is certainly relevant to their criticism, and should me mentioned. I don't see the encyclopedic benefit of stating criticisms but witholding the evidence as to whether they are true or not. Andyvphil (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't really see the point of editorializing, either. It's pretty obvious throughout the article that they're not a group of only scientists.Athene cunicularia (talk) 22:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It is uncontroversial that they are not a group of scientists. That is not on point. The question is whether their name misleads those encountering it in other places than this article. My experience is that that assertion is controversial, despite the fact that it is clearly true (Falwell, QED - but I've run into a number of examples by non-notables before). Much of the "criticism" section centers on the observation that the UCS is treated as something it is not. Now, I didn't provide the Falwell cite. I was just checking it, as part of bookmarking my audit of edits on a page on my watchlist by supplying a cite improvement, and Falwell's credulous confirmation of the other critics' comments jumped out at me. We deal in verifiable facts, not truths, but surely truth has its place in determining our choice of what verifiable facts to include. I see no non-POV reason to exclude this verifiable-fact confirmation of the other critics' concerns. Andyvphil (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually not sure that it is controversial in the first place. Anyone with a rudimentary ability to research anything would see, for example just by visiting their website, that their motto is "Citizens and Scientists for Environmental Solutions." How easy is that to misinterpret? Maybe Falwell made the mistake. It probably took about 5 minutes for Stossel to make his shocking revelation.Athene cunicularia (talk) 02:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

About 5 seconds... but the word didn't reach Falwell. The question isn't whether it's hard to find out what UCS is if you research it. The question is what an ordinary person is led to believe if he hears in, say, the New York Times or on NPR, that the "Union of Concerned Scientists" has said such-and-such... Not "controversial in the first place"? Are you conceeding that he is likely to be misled (assuming he does not go to the UCS website to find out exactly who "these scientists" are)? If not, then you and I are having a difference of opinion that rises to the level of controversy if practically every critic of UCS feels compelled to mention it. Andyvphil (talk) 09:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that most critics mention it because it's an easy jab. If you were a regular Joe who got an ad from UCS, it would have their motto. If you were to visit their website, it would have their motto. That's why I don't think it's so controversial that it warrants several mentions in a single article, especially when it requires editorializing or explanation of a quote on the wiki editor's part. Athene cunicularia (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I have received only a few pieces of spam mail from UCS, and have visited their website only in conjunction with editing Wikipedia. I have heard and seen them quoted many times on NPR and in newspapers, however, and I suspect the only thing relatively unusual about my experience is that I have received as many spam mails as I have. As normally encountered their name is misleading. Nothing you have said contradicts that. Andyvphil (talk) 23:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
You are making assumptions you can't prove about how people, including Falwell, interpret UCS's name. I have no problem with criticisms of UCS's name being included in the criticism section. But Falwell didn't make that criticism. The other critics make that point and do an adequate job or representing the criticism. You are reading too deeply into two words in the Falwell citation and can not prove that Falwell was confused by the name. Therefore, there is no good reason to add the "these scientists" line to the Falwell section. (72.192.237.178 (talk) 00:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC))

The Falwell "these scientists" parenthetical is potentially confusing by itself. It could imply to readers that he did not refer to UCS directly in the article. You are assuming Falwell's mindset when he wrote the piece to justify including this phrase. It's possible that Falwell was perfectly aware that UCS employs scientists and non-scientists, but that he wanted to directly refer to the climate scientists who work at UCS. It's also entirely possible that he wrote "these scientists" to save a little space in his column rather than typing out the organization's entire name. If you can prove that Falwell was confused and that this demonstrates someone not understanding what UCS is, then adding the phrase and explaining would be fine. But right now you're engaging in conjecture that you aren't able to verify. And including the phrase does not fairly or neutrally represent Falwell or UCS. (72.192.237.178 (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC))

For the record, a more complete quote reads:

The media frequently note that the Union of Concerned Scientists is leading the charge to confront the out-of-control global warming advance. These scientists were recently described by writer Dennis Byrne as the "inexhaustibly liberal and self-appointed guardians of scientific purity [who] try to corrupt science for its own ends." But in today's media, the Union is depicted as heroes of a just cause, tellers of truth in a war against evil American companies who want to destroy the world.[12]

The Byrne piece quoted reads:

I'm not surprised, but I can't excuse, how the Union of Concerned Scientists, the inexhaustibly liberal and self-appointed guardians of scientific purity, can try to corrupt science for its own ends. But I never can get over how so many of my media colleagues allow themselves to be so easily manipulated by junk science.[13]

Your speculation that the subject of Falwell's comment has changed between the first and second sentences, and changes back between the second and third, is completely unsupported. But in any case the text as I have currently written it makes no such or opposite supposition. The reader is free to investigate the cite and reach the same or opposite conclusion that you have reached. He will not be meaningfully free to do so if the apparently relevant fact is not presented to him. Your argument for suppressing it is specious. Andyvphil (talk) 23:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your response, but I think I didn't clearly communicate my point. You are still assuming Falwell's mindset to justify putting the quote in there. You are saying that Falwell was confused by UCS's name. I'm saying there's other reasons he could have used the phrase "these scientists," including simply trying to save space or not to be redundant in his writing. As it stands now, you've inserted a non sequiter into an otherwise clear sentence to back up a criticism of UCS that Falwell never made. You are including the phrase because you think it shows that Falwell was confused or that readers can use it to judge for themselves whether or not Falwell was confused. Either way, including the phrase makes little sense in and of itself and your reason for doing so involves making an assumption about what Falwell was thinking that neither you, me, nor anyone else reading the wiki can prove or disprove. As such, the phrase should be removed.(72.192.237.178 (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC))
I am observing the verifiable fact that Falwell referred to UCS as "these scientists" and making an editorial judgement that his referring to the organization that misleading or misled way is relevant to assertions of Stossel, et.al., that UCS' name is misleading. The fact that we haven't noted Falwell making that criticism himself is irrelevant. The fact that he is simultaneously making a different criticism is irrelevant. There is no prohibition in policy against using a single quote simultaneously for two different purposes. The fact that you never know to an absolute certainty what someone is thinking when they write something is no reason not to quote them. Your conclusion does not follow from your premises. Andyvphil (talk) 02:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Same guy here who's been going back and forth with you on this. I signed up for Wikipedia yesterday. Your editorial judgment is wrong in my opinion. You have acknowledged that you are quoting "these scientists" as evidence for Falwell being confused. I am saying you are taking a big leap to draw that conclusion because there are alternative explanations for why he would use the phrase. You can not back up your editorial judgment with facts. You are doing so to serve a minor point that the average reader of this wiki probably couldn't pick up on at first blush. Your attempt to inject what you view as evidence of someone being confused by the UCS name has made the Falwell section unclear and confusing. There might be an interesting debate to be had about whether or not organizations have confusing names with accompanying lists of how they're referred to in the press and by notable figures - but a wikipedia page that is supposed to communicate information to lay readers is not the place to attempt to have that debate. I acknowledge that you are including a fact. Your justification for including that particular fact, however, is weak and it's inclusion hurts the clarity of the article.(LabcoatJesus (talk) 11:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC))
You have not, in fact, supplied any plausible alternative explanation for Falwell's use of "These scientists" to refer to UCS. As I pointed out in my first reply, the full quotes make it absolutely clear that he is referring to the organization, not some subset of its employeees, as something that it is not, and that something that Stossel et al have just been quoted as finding it necessary to point out that it is not. If you think the average reader of Wikipedia will not understand the point that is being made I am prepared to be more explicit. But the justification for including the verifiable and inarguably relevant fact that Falwell, even speaking critically of UCS, gives it credit for being something it is not is strong, not weak. By policy, Wikipedia deals in verifiable facts, not truth, but in this instance they coincide: UCS name is misleading. Falwell, QED. You can look it up. Organizing available material like this is what Wikipedia does. Andyvphil (talk) 15:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Andyvphil, you are treading a pretty thin line here. Falwell's statement could've been a typo or a misinterpretation of a copyeditor. Motives or not, your parenthetical seems to reflect your personal interpretation--a parsing of words intended to further an agenda. That aside, his error isn't really relevant to the criticism section, since his crit is 100% focused on the UCS' "left wing" nature, not the fact that the organization's name misleads anyone.Athene cunicularia (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I've already addressed this. "The fact that he is simultaneously making a different criticism is irrelevant." You've already conceeded that "most critics mention" that UCS is not what its name implies, although your POV was that it is "because it's an easy jab". The simple fact is that someone with a different POV (e.g., Andyvphil) quite reasonably sees Falwell's gaffe (and other examples I have run across) as evidence that the name in fact misleads is not ("most critics mention it") a WP:FRINGE point of view, and that that POV is entitled to a fair presentation in the article. And a fair presentation requires not merely that the concerns be stated but that readily verifiable evidence that they may be correct not be suppressed.
LabcoatJesus is making two arguments for suppression. The first is that Falwell may not have meant what he appears to say, which is true only in the sense that it is always true, and is a ridiculously weak argument for not quoting him. The second is that the interpolated note is confusing... but this is not an argument for deletion. It is an argument for exegesis. I am perfectly prepared to write "Most critcs choose to note that UCS is not what its name implies[insert citations here], but Falwell refers to UCS as 'these scientists'..." but I would, on past evidence, fully expect you to then complain that I am giving this concern even more of too much attention. Andyvphil (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I raised the possibility of another explanation related to what Athene cunicularia is saying. Namely, Falwell (or an editor) could have used the phrase to keep the word count of the article down and avoid redundancy. That's a very plausible explanation and one we can't discount. If Andyvphil wants to air some more explicit language, I think that's fine. But I think if he's more explicit, we'll see a sentence that is non-NPOV. Andyvphil - can you address the plausibility of this being a simple short-hand by Falwell as opposed to Falwell being misled by the name? And can you suggest some other language? Thanks. (LabcoatJesus (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC))
Let it be noted that there was an edit conflict, and that both immediately preceeding comments were made without reference to each other.
LJ, you need to negotiate first with AC, not me, about more explicit language. I cannot simultaneously satisfy your concern that the less attentive will not pick up on the significance of Falwell's gaffe and AC's concern that the matter is being given undue weight. Sorry.
And it doesn't matter whether Falwell really believed UCS was a union of scientists or whether he carelessly fell into referring to them as something that he knew they are not. His audience is not, as I have noted above, receiving UCS spam mail or visiting the UCS website or reading this article. They have just been told that UCS is "scientists". Which is precisely on point to what AC has conceeded "most critics mention". How this can be properly ignored in the crit section is beyond me. Andyvphil (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
There's no reason why we can't discuss new drafts here.Athene cunicularia (talk) 01:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Jerry Falwell's view of the UCS adds nothing and is really not relevant or notable enough for inclusion here. He is neither and member of academia nor the scientific community, and his ministry is more concerned with scoring political points than scientific ones. Since it neither adds any value or is relevant it's inclusion here is not justified. FeloniousMonk (talk) 02:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Make that Jerry Falwell. Note the color of the link. In case you're colorblind, it's blue. Your opinion of the notability of his opinions is idiosyncratic. In fact, I don't think that there is a critic of UCS that hasn't stated that UCS "is more concerned with scoring political points than scientific ones", and if that was indeed the focus of Falwell's ministry your post gives strong evidence that his opinion ought to be considered by you to be expert on this subject. Andyvphil (talk) 11:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Was that colorblind comment really necessary? Let's all try to keep a cool head during this discussion. Thank you. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 14:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The idea that you have to be a "member of academia [or] the scientific community" for your critical opinion of UCS to be noted, accompanied by deleting the entire paragraph under discussion, was so dim and obstructive that my mildly sarcastic response was a model of restraint. Andyvphil (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
In the interests of civility and collaborative editing, please refrain from such comments in the future, however difficult it may be for you to restrain yourself. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 23:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I will further remark that your contribution to this subject is two deletions of verifiable relevant material and some lecturing on behavior, i.e. less than nothing. Andyvphil (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that you are maintaining your keen interest in civility. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 00:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Andyvphil, you may want to note that there are now two admins and two users who disagree with you. WP:OR seems to apply to your parenthetical, and numerous other arguments have been made to justify its removal. Are you sure that a little parenthetical, which is clearly your interpretation of someone else's statement and reflects a criticism that is made clear elsewhere in the article, is worth possibly getting banned again for revert warring?Athene cunicularia (talk) 06:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I am certain that I am not obliged to take in good humor being chided for bad behaviour by an admin whose only contribution to this debate is revert warring. (And, yes, I've got one "blocked for 3RR" notice, administered by an admin who is trying to replace the existing rules with a more stringent standard and who admitted (a) that I had not violated 3RR, and (b) that he didn't think I should have been blocked, but did it so he wouldn't be accused of inconsistency. The details are fully visible on my homepage. And now I'm going to have to drop this boilerplate into any dispute where an opposing editor wants to retreat from arguing the merits into ad hominum. *sigh* Ain't the admin system wonderful?) As to WP:OR, the thesis that UCS name is misleading is not original to me. Wikipedia articles are not republications -- they are necessarily exercises in original juxtaposition. The bounday between OR and ordinary editorial judgement can be somewhat subtle and worth examining, and I am prepared to do so. But not until we get this other crap off the table. Exactly which of the "numerous other arguments [that] have been made to justify [the] removal" of mention of Falwell's gaffe have not been completely demolished? Please be specific. (e.g., most recently, "Falwell isn't a scientist.") Andyvphil (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
One argument might be that consensus does not seem to be on your side. Another might be that your editorializing is putting words into someone's mouth in order for you to insert your criticism into the article (OR). I'm not sure why you care so much about it, to be honest. In some ways I think that you protest too much. You know that it doesn't belong, but you're so attached to your brilliant observation that you must defend your editorial integrity. In the grand scheme of things, it seems pretty pointless.Athene cunicularia (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, as the guideline states, "consensus can change" and is in any case not in and of itself an argument for one course or another. It seems that this article attracts pro-UCS editors who don't like to see it pointed out that the founders of UCS chose a misleading name that continues to successfully mislead those who encounter it. As I had just pointed out, this is not my criticism -- as you conceeded on 20 Nov "most critics mention it". And, as I wrote on 19 Nov "It is uncontroversial that they are not a group of scientists." Yet Falwell refers to UCS as "These scientists". That this is evidence that the concerns of the critics are well founded, and that this article will be improved if its readers are made aware of the fact that there is such evidence, seems obvious to me. Instead of asking why I am so determined to inform them of verifiable fact you ought better ask why your colleagues are so determined that they not be so informed. And, as I said, if you want to pursue the question of whether policy blocks us from doing what we ought to do in this case to improve the article I believe that I can make the case that we can. But not until we get this other crap off the table. Exactly which of the "numerous other arguments [that] have been made to justify [the] removal" of mention of Falwell's gaffe have not been completely demolished? Please be specific. (e.g., recently, "Falwell might not have meant it.") Andyvphil (talk) 10:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
It seems that this article attracts pro-UCS editors who don't like to see it pointed out that the founders of UCS chose a misleading name that continues to successfully mislead those who encounter it. If that was true, then people would be making an effort to remove the criticism from other places. The problem is that in this instance, you are pointing out the criticism, not Falwell. It is not Falwell's criticism, it is Andyvphil's criticism based on Falwell's statement, therefore it is not a valid criticism. You are merely showing your own bias here.Athene cunicularia (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, finally. Numerous argument#3: "I's not Falwell's criticism." But you admitted it is made by most critics. It's not Andyvphil's criticism -- it's Stossel who's quoted - and it's not "based on" Falwell's statement; Falwell's statement is evidence for preceeding and preexisting criticism. I pointed this out to you on Nov. 19th, in the very first sentence I wrote in this debate. What part of this are you not getting? Andyvphil (talk) 02:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The simple fact is that it's not Falwell's criticism. He did not make the criticism. You are making it based on your interpretation (which is only ambiguously accurate) of Jerry Falwell's choice of words. Stossel's criticism has already been noted. To whom would you attribute the criticism? If Falwell didn't make it, and Stossel didn't make it, then it must be you. I'm pretty sure that you're the only one who doesn't get this out of the numerous people who have commented.Athene cunicularia (talk) 02:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
"The key word in 'Union of Concerned Scientists' isn't 'Scientists' — you don't need any particular degree or experience to join."--John Stossel. "I'm not making the criticism, merely supplying evidence that it is on point."-- Andyvphil. "...most critics mention it because it's an easy jab." and "To whom would you attribute the criticism?" -- Athene cunicularia. Answer: Most critics, including Stossel. Andyvphil (talk) 03:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
In fact, it's not even unreasonable to assume that Falwell is correct in his assumption that the UCS policymakers are scientists. After all, the organization may have citizen and scientist members, but does it mean that their policies are also defined by citizens and scientists? Do you have verifiable information that UCS policies aren't defined by scientists?Athene cunicularia (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm hesitant to give this argument as low a number as #4. It's a new one: "Falwell was right -- they are scientists!". All those "economists, engineers engaged in environmental and security issues, ...executive and support staff", and ordinary members are just along for the ride and don't have any input, sez AC. I think you're the one that needs to come up with a RS for this assertion. And if it's true...well, rebuttal is as relevant to criticism as positive evidence. I'm not the one trying to suppress mention of anything. Andyvphil (talk) 03:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm just trying to show that the meaning behind Falwell's words is up for interpretation.Athene cunicularia (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You have no evidence that those who object to your Falwell edits are "pro-UCS editors"; I for one had never heard of UCS before you were complaining about the UCS over at the John Stossel article. What is more likely is not that these editors are pro-USC, but that they object to your original research and editorializing in the article. You would do well to remember assume good faith and realize that other editors are your collaborators here and not out to suppress your insights regarding UCS. If they were, then they'd surely target the second sentence of the article, which clearly identifies the organization as not solely composed of professional scientists. That sentence should suffice when it comes to the "misleading" nature of the organization's name, so there is no need for your to seed this article and others with additional reminders. Gamaliel (talk) 01:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You confess your ignorance with refreshing candor, but your suggestion that the second sentence of the article would be suppressed if pro-UCS wanted to omit mention of the misleading nature of UCS' name is wrongheaded. The actual pro-UCS position is most usually that the name is false but not misleading. The position of critics is usually that it is both. My position is that they get to say so, and evidence one way or the other should be made available to the reader. Andyvphil (talk) 03:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Make the evidence available, by all means, but what is wrongheaded is your insistence upon inserting your editorializing into the article. Gamaliel (talk) 05:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
OK. I'm open to suggestions. Where and how do you want to put it in? Andyvphil (talk) 12:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed the word "inaccurately" from Falwell section. That seemed too strong an injection of editorializing. However, I left the rest of it alone until this can be settled. I think we need more input from other people, including admins. I don't think any of us are clear on Wikipedia policy, if it exists, on cataloging things like Andyvphil is advocating.

As for the name - The organization does include scientists. And just like other scientific societies, including ones that make political statements on anything from funding to intelligent design, it has support staff who are not scientists. Whether or not that makes the name legitimate or illegitimate is controversial and critics go after the name. I don't see anything on UCS's site about their name. I would assume the organization wouldn't bother responding to such criticisms, anyway. Regardless, it seems those views are already well represented. I think there's a big difference between cataloging criticisms and assuming those criticisms are true, even in the criticism section. We need to figure out how significant that difference is.(LabcoatJesus (talk) 14:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC))

It's not just the support staff that are non-scientists, and calling it a "scientific society" assumes precisely what is contested by critics. And "cataloging" criticisms uncritically is not very encyclopedic. We're talking here about whether to mention or suppress evidence. Andyvphil (talk) 03:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons to oppose User:Andyvphil's interpretation of Falwell quote as an aside

Can we get a show of support or opposition for the removal of Andy's parenthetical?

I support the removal of the aside for these reasons.

  • The criticism is an interpretation of Falwell's words, but is not a criticism that Falwell made, therefore it is not useful, under WP:OR.
  • The criticism has already been made or the difference has already been noted, therefore it may not be necessary to include a criticism based on original research.
  • The criticism drawn from Falwell's choice of words may or may not reflect Falwell's original intention (how does anyone know for sure)?
  • It could even be a typo seeing as though the dispute concerns only the two words, "these scientists."
  • Falwell's choice of words could be technically correct, since scientists do determine the UCS's policy.Athene cunicularia (talk) 04:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

*sigh*

  • WP:OR is not about usefulness. And what Falwell said is relevant to Stossel 's criticism. I've only said this about seven times.
  • Noting the existance of a criticism, even by multiple critics, is no substitute for mentioning evidence.
  • We don't generally refrain from quoting people because they might not have meant what they said. What's different here?
  • Typo? Typo for what?
  • They do? Ordinary members and all those "economists, engineers engaged in environmental and security issues, ...executive and support staff" mentioned in the article don't have any input? You've got a cite saying so? Andyvphil (talk) 12:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we should remove the "these scientists" parenthetical.

  • I don't think AC means "typo." I think AC means the use of the phrase "these scientists" could have been a simple editorial input to conserve space or avoid repetition. Including the phrase would be based on Andyvphil's assessment of the quote.

(LabcoatJesus (talk) 00:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC))

[edit] changes to issue stances re: consumers guide

The direct quotes were great, but it seems like they're better suited for the page on the book itself as opposed to the page about the organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.237.178 (talk) 02:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)