Talk:American Council on Science and Health

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Taken from the main article

Some people like to remove useuful information which allows readers to reach their own conclusions. This information posted by Jeff Stier- BRYAN--- you may contact me at stier at ACSH.org if you want to again remove the above (I tried emailing you to share this info- but I do not see your address.) You have posted information which you are now on notice is incorrect-regarding our funding. User talk:66.237.192.3

According to [1] Jeff Stier is the Associate Director of ACSH, is responsible for external affairs, including media and government relations, policy, legal affairs and development. Assuming this is true it presents me with a bit of a dilemma; on the one hand he's been consistantly partisan in editing the DDT page on this matter for several years now but on the other hand he's in a position to know these sorts of details. Jeff, could you perhaps point out a publically-accessible source where your claims can be checked (bearing in mind that I'm Canadian so have no access to American libraries)? And perhaps if you wish to discuss this matter at length it'd be a good idea to register a user account (note that although that would make my email address available I prefer to discuss the content of articles publically on talk: pages like this one). Bryan 16:34, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC) (small update: I emailed Jeff Stier to confirm that it is him, and he responded that it was.)

POV tag

I really question the validity of the idea that ACSH is simply a lobbying group for industry. Is it objectively verifiable that they are simply a front end for industry? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dsimcha (talk • contribs).

Which bit says it's a "front end for industry"? Bryan 02:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I edited that out at one point too, and the editor who closely controls the page, DrFleischman, said that in my reading the links and seeing some are wrong - I noted Consumers Union is not Greenpeace - he said I had too much knowledge and undid most of them. In reading his talk page, he seems to have conflicts of interest about this organization but instead says that about all who edit here. ForceFive —Preceding undated comment added 07:02, 25 September 2017‎

Tufts University accuracy scale

On the Tufts University accuracy indicator, does a higher number on the scale represent more accurate information from that organization as listed on ACSH? Chris 19:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New POV Tag

This is unrelated to the above POV tag discussion. The information in this article appears to be accurate, however it is very clearly biased against the ACSH (esp. the last two paragraphs in the introduction). I believe that a reader knowing nothing about the ACSH who encountered this article would be unlikely to leave without a bad impression of the organization based on what they read here. The easiest solution is probably to remove most of the biased information from the intro, but I think that would leave too small of an article, and criticism is important. Maybe it would be better to move it to a separate "criticism" section. --24.131.215.166 (talk) 01:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You state criticism is important and I am not sure what your exact issues are (where exactly the bias is you see.) I don't see how separating out a criticism section would make the article not POV, as your statement implies to me. I'm going to remove the tag for now. -Shootbamboo (talk) 01:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tobacco policy

I think this entry should have something about Elizabeth Whelan's good deed -- she didn't take money from the tobacco company, and she attacked cigarette smoking before it was cool to do so in Republican circles. --Nbauman (talk) 05:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dramatic shift in the article violating neutrality

In this edit by Kozitt (talk · contribs), the article took a dramatic shift towards hyping up the organization and obscuring or removing any critical discussion of it:

the Center for Science in the Public Interest analysis was removed
the Daily Show coverage was removed
Mother Jones coverage of their Medical Director being convicted of fraud was removed. Mother Jones provides more interesting background on the org as well

Meanwhile, the following was added:

Dubiously relevant Better Business review was highlighted
A misleading discussion of ACSH's view on smoking was added, which omitted the fact that ACSH does not think secondhand smoke is harmful (see, for example, Orac's analysis)

After fixing the above issues, I think there are probably some good critical sources that we're missing. Of course, Scienceblogs (in addition to Orac, see Angry Toxicologist) has covered ACSH a bit and I think the source should be considered, but I realize the publisher is a bit borderline. II | (t - c) 04:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, I pretty much agree. Maybe you should bring the article back to my last version as a starting point, and then we can reinstate those changes that Kozitt (talk · contribs) made that are OK. Yilloslime ^T_C 05:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the article with as much information as I could find about the organization itself and shaped it so that it had sections, etc. because this talk page has indicated several times that the article didn't meet NPOV standards. I feel that there is now more encyclopedic information about the organization while properly maintaining a place for criticism. As to the specific points made above:

The Daily Show coverage has its own section under media appearances and was never removed.
CSPI and ACSH seem to have a problem with each other. As they both claim to be watchdogs and consumer advocacy groups, I don't think that either can be considered a reliable source about the other. Or, if you are going to quote CSPI on ACSH, shouldn't you then include ACSH's response to maintain NPOV?

Yes, sure sounds like one would include ACSH's response to maintain NPOV. However, the article lists a 1982 report, not the 2004 press release. A google book search showed some documentation of their problem. I added that they "spar" but I think that more context should be added from what I saw in available sources. -Shootbamboo (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mother Jones is self-described as anti-corporate at which point I felt that, in relation to this topic, it fell under the category of "questionable sources" because it expresses an extremist point of view and relies heavily on opinion. Is there no other, more mainstream source reporting the same information? And if not, doesn't that say something?
- Mother Jones is extremist? It's a mainstream news source - as mainstream as The Weekly Standard or The National Review. All three are available at large, well stocked book stores. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.233.103 (talk) 08:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it's available doesn't mean it's neutral or reliable. The National Enquirer and Us Weekly are both widely available. Mother Jones has a self-declared bias. You cite the Weekly Standard and The National Review--two sources I would object to citing with regards to something like the state of the Democratic party. I don't think a source can be considered reliable when its own professed ideology is in direct conflict with the topic that it is covering--they're openly opinionated. Now, I have no objection to the information if a more mainstream (or less ideological, if you prefer) source can corroborate the information. That's a fair compromise, no?Kozitt (talk) 18:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not fair. Mother Jones is biased but is still considered reliable. Look at the archives here: Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources. The only potential problem with something from MJ is if it was from a blog, which does not appear to be the case. Sounds like you're talking more about a WP:RS issue here, and if you want to raise a general concern about this WP guideline you should discuss it there. Also, I understand that you want the article to be neutral, we all do, but if only one biased source covers a subject, then in order to be neutral, we would reflect that bias in accordance with WP:NPOV. Otherwise add sources that balance out the issue. Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 21:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I felt that the BBB review was relevant...not really sure why it wouldn't be.
Happy to see the section on tobacco expanded--I just added what I could find through research, and the only thing I found on secondhand smoke was the Apple thing.

Very happy to discuss and work together to make the entry the best it can be.Kozitt (talk) 18:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the BBB review is largely (but maybe not completely) irrelevant. The ACSH advocates on science and health issues. From what I understand the BBB looks at the organizational/financial structure of the group. While I agree, theoretically, that the organizational/financial structure of the group would influence its advocacy on science and health issues, I don't think the BBB review illuminates this relationship. In short, I don't think the BBB would tell us much (or anything?) about the type of science and health advocacy that comes out of the ACSH—which is what I think this article attempts to shed light on. Furthermore, I don't understand how the BBB would be an arbiter of scientific accuracy. -Shootbamboo (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you're coming from. At the same time, I think there are multiple areas in which encyclopedic information should be offered in this article--both on ACSH's functioning as an organization and on its positions and scientific argumentation, just like one can discuss say Apple's products, but can also discuss things about the company like financial health, organization, media tactics, etc. I think there's a compromise--the BBB information doesn't need to be so long, but as the current version stands, all it says is that an assessment was done. If the fact of an assessment is relevant, then so too is the outcome, no? Kozitt (talk) 12:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It states the outcome of a "Wise Giving" status. I don't have a problem with a few more words, but I just don't see how more than a sentence is warranted. -Shootbamboo (talk) 21:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added the outcome--the score--just because the BBB issues Wise Giving reports on charities who meet none of their criteria--it appears to be a scale, not a status. I totally see why much more than that a sentence could be considered undue weight. At the same time, I think the score begs the question of what standards they do and don't meet, which is why I wrote it as I originally had. What do you think? Is some detail necessary there? Maybe just a brief sentence on the standard they don't meet? I'm not sure--I'll wait for you guidance. Also, I'm going to break out the reliable sources discussion and would love your input... Kozitt (talk) 15:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a reader is interested in what 19/20 means for BBB they should go to a BBB website, or article, in my opinion. -Shootbamboo (talk) 01:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of Sources Resulting in POV issue

Wanted to break out the Mother Jones and CSPI issue to discuss it more thoroughly. I think that these sources are biased with regard to this topic and, at the point where the information that's being cited to them is seemingly unavailable in less biased sources, I think the information's inclusion is inappropriate. Can we either find a neutral publication to cite or remove the biased information so that the article lives up to NPOV standards? In particular, if the Mother Jones info on Dr. Ross is true (to be clear, I have no knowledge one way or the other), there should be a public record somewhere. Wouldn't that be a superior citation? And if there's not a public record, doesn't that call the information into question, which would make the article pretty reckless with regard to biographical information on a living person. Kozitt (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might not have communicated effectively about NPOV. There's nothing in WP:NPOV I am aware of that takes your position. In fact, it appears NPOV would take the opposite, because removal of sources because they are biased is not a reason for removal (as I quoted in the edit summary). And we're not really here to speculate too much. But here's my 2 cents—if the MJ report was false, I bet they would be sued for libel. To repeat the point I tried to make above, we report what is published. Whatever bias (or perspective) is represented, we represent that in the article (to maintain neutrality). (It is OK and neutral to have biased sources.) And for the range of perspectives, we are supposed to represent them in proportion to their published "weights"—that way we "neutralize" bias with multiple sources. And your question about the us finding the "superior citation" is basically asking us to be journalists (to fact check). We're not writing news, we're writing an encyclopedia. -Shootbamboo (talk) 02:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto to what Shoot said - there's basically no chance that Mother Jones could get away with making this claim if it wasn't true. With that said, if you do find any evidence that the charge isn't true or has been struck from his record, even if is requires primary sources such as a public record, let us know. I'm not into adding things I know are false even if verifiability is more the general rule of Wikipedia than truth (see WP:TRUTH). Note that you can add supportive statements from apparent "conservative" organizations here (as long as they're not totally off-base), just like we can add critical statements from "liberal" organizations. II | (t - c) 02:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable facts about ACSH is found on Sourcewatch.www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=ACSH+&fulltext=Search —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesperklack (talk • contribs) 15:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Industry ringer

Is anyone aware that this organization is nothing more than an industry ringer that is funded by Dow, Monsanto and GE to give quotes to the paper about how safe toxic chemicals are? I have in my possession the depositions of GE's vice president for environmental affairs Steve Hamilton admitting that GE paid ACSH to tell reporters that PCBs are safe; my reporting partner has seen the documents that say that Dow and Monsanto paid (i.e.,, "funded") ACSH to claim that Agent Orange is safe.

In the case of GE, I have a "holding statement" that provides the names of a diversity of ringers who are ready to answer the phone when the NY Times tries to get the "other side of the story." Now, this is a primary source document, but I acquired the thing in the course of my reporting for Sierra and other national magazines. Dioxinfreak (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS would be nice. Shot info (talk) 07:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/item_kLIoDopRpHMOh2Rbax7XxN;jsessionid=D5EC9B6C3E3774692DB513018AB21482 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.198.158 (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ACSH is active then the industries get in to problems. Like the fluoride sellers. They have problem because of this : http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190977,00.html and:http://www.talkinternational.com/PDF/flouride-report.pdf

ACSH gave life to one of their old "organizations":

" http://www.scienceinmedicine.org/ "

and what are they selling?

http://www.scienceinmedicine.org/policy/statements/fluoridation.pdf

and

http://www.scienceinmedicine.org/policy/papers/AntiFluoridationist.pdf

The first document say fluroide is a nutrient . That´s not correct and the reference do not say it is. The second document is for use on the internet by debunkers. Here are the people that are responsible for these articles:

http://www.scienceinmedicine.org/fellows/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.194.110 (talk) 09:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's called Fluoride isn't it? But irrespective of the links above, feel free to post here in the talkpage the edits you propose to make to the article and then Editors can discuss here. If you are only going to pontificate, then your posts can be deleted per WP:TALK and WP:SOAP. Shot info (talk) 00:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I em very impressed by ACSH. It is a very competent lobby-organisation, and it is important to describe them correct. They have many "scientific advisors" doing a good job spreading ACSHs ideas. That I intend to describe.--Karl den tolfte (talk) 08:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After I left my position as ACSH’s administrative director, I went public with examples of ACSH working hand in glove and shilling for industry, but that hasn’t made it into this article. Liz Whelan lied every time she said ACSH offer quid pro quo to industry. Nicmart (talk) 01:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nicmart, do you know if anything you blew the whistle on ever made it into any reliable sources? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing that I would consider a reliable source, but opinions vary. Nicmart (talk) 01:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History and Mission

The beginning of this section is completely botched. Perhaps someone wants to fix it. Nicmart (talk) 01:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on American Council on Science and Health. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100212070447/http://www.acsh.org:80/healthissues/newsID.1277/healthissue_detail.asp to http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.1277/healthissue_detail.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only Allowing Criticism But Not Praise Violates Neutrality

Only allowing criticism from left-wing outlets like Mother Jones while removing all praise from journalists and politicians is bias, plain and simple. Editors RileyBugz and DrFleischman are responsible for altering the neutrality of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.109.62.35 (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, a section discussing media appearances was entirely removed, despite the fact that it's very relevant.

How do you suggest to incorporate this praise while not having it be advertising, then? RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 01:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We include material from RS. Are any new good sources proposed? Alexbrn (talk) 01:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, here's one. A science writer at Reason (libertarian) calls ACSH "superb." If we're going to allow criticism from Mother Jones (progressive), we should allow praise from outlets with other viewpoints, no? http://reason.com/blog/2017/02/02/death-rate-for-young-white-americans-is

STOP undoing the "dispute" tag. Now, you're just blatantly violating Wikipedia rules.

Read WP:UNDUE, it seems that there are a lot more sources criticizing this organization. RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 01:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they have received criticism. And there's a gigantic section listing all of the criticisms. That's fine. But we need to have something to balance it. There's plenty of praise this organization has received. A science writer at Reason called ACSH "superb." We can't ignore stuff like this. http://reason.com/blog/2017/02/02/death-rate-for-young-white-americans-is — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.109.62.35 (talk) 01:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but it shouldn't be too large (say maybe one or possibly two paragraphs). And, how do you propose to implement it so it doesn't sound like blatant advertising? RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 01:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. What do you propose? IMO, the criticism section is far, far too long. It's seems (to me, anyway), that somebody who had a beef with ACSH wrote this entry. I'm trying to make it more reasonable. Sorry for getting a bit upset. But please leave up the dispute tag until we get this hammered out. I'm sure we can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.109.62.35 (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know, but it might be good to add a response section or something in the criticism section. RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 01:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll get to it when I can. Might be a while, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.245.130.59 (talk) 03:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First, let me be clear: I agree with 73.109.62.35 that the "Criticisms" section is non-neutral. However I disagree with their proposal of how to fix it (by "balancing" it with a corresponding "Praise" section). This would be neither encyclopedic nor neutral. Encyclopedia articles should not be compendia of the most positive or negative language used to describe the subject. A very helpful guide here is WP:CRITICISM. The best way to solve the problem is to focus on substantive factual content and then attach critical or praising viewpoints to that factual content. Criticism does not come in a vacuum. The ACSH was criticized for doing or saying certain things. Our article should say what ACSH did or said, and then notable viewpoints about those actions or words should be summarized. Then each instance can be moved out of the criticism ghetto and into a more descriptive section. Take industry funding as an example, since it's first. This should be moved into a new section simply called "Funding." It should describe the ACSH's sources of funding, industry and otherwise. Then it should describe the noteworthy criticisms about that funding, including critics' complaints about industry funding. If ACSH or its defenders have any noteworthy substantive response, then that should follow. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much what I meant. RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds fair. How do you suppose we should incorporate these? This piece in the WSJ refers to the late Elizabeth Whelan and her work at ACSH as "Great source and great contributor to American public life." https://www.wsj.com/articles/these-boots-were-made-for-bombing-1411319054 Another piece in Reason refers to ACSH as "superb." https://reason.com/blog/2017/02/02/death-rate-for-young-white-americans-is/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.133.193 (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2017

I'm not sure you read what I wrote and RileyBugz agreed to. Random criticism shouldn't be balanced with random praise. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so if you agree that the criticism section is non-neutral, how do you propose we fix that? I'm proposing solutions, but apparently they're not appropriate. Leaving this page the way it is is unacceptable. What's a solution we can agree on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.133.193 (talk) 08:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again. Please read what I wrote beyond the first sentence and what RileyBugz agreed to. It's about how to fix the neutrality problem. I started fixing the problem and you reverted me without explanation. Not constructive. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposed solution (The best way to solve the problem is to focus on substantive factual content and then attach critical or praising viewpoints to that factual content.) is fine but a bit vague. I've provided actual sources refuting content in the Wikipedia article, which is quite relevant. But you say that "random praise" isn't appropriate. Well, re-writing the entire article the way you've proposed it (each instance can be moved out of the criticism ghetto and into a more descriptive section) will take months. I"m trying to implement at least some short-term fixes to get the article more balanced. Let's not let the perfect become the enemy of the good.24.22.133.193 (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't take months. I've made major improvements in the last 24 hours. All it takes is going through the sources--there aren't that many of them--and adding a bit more informative and balancing information as appropriate. I do not agree with "balancing" an article that was larded up with vacuous criticisms being further larded up with vacuous praise. That moves us further from our goal, not closer. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to get in to this dicussion but for me it looks like this whole article is blatantly biased towards making ACSH something they are not, but proclaim themselves to be, namely based on science. What scientific theory is and is not can be discussed endlessly, but it is clear that attempting to take an openminded view and being based on facts and observations is an important aspect, that is lacking in this organisation, as well as scientific competence. If it is "left-wing" to point out any of ACSH's shortcomings, then science is "left-wing", by the way, just to comment the opening statement. Why is the ACSH article treated so differently from e.g. Scientology? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanzen (talk • contribs) 23:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NY Post

Here's a good source with a lot of useful material to be added, if anyone wants to take a crack at it:

Briquelet, Kate (December 23, 2012). "Big pay, low payoff at NYC nonprofit". New York Post.

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's way out of date. The article is about Elizabeth Whelan, who is dead, and Gil Ross, who is no longer medical director. (He's a lowly advisor now, along with 300 other people.) Read their Our Team page. The organization has completely new leadership. http://acsh.org/our-team — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.133.193 (talk) 04:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Out of date? What? Where in Wikipedia does it say we can't use sources from 2012? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Whelan is dead. Gil Ross is effectively gone. You also said that the criticism section was non-netural. This article would worsen that problem, not improve it. I'm trying to find ways to bring balance to this lopsided article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.133.193 (talk) 08:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on how the content is added, doesn't it? There's no reason to jump to conclusions. Are you suggesting every bit of material from that NY Post article would be undue? That's an extreme position. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gil Ross

This section needs to be improved. He was medical director (according to NY Post article). Now, he's no longer part of the leadership team (according to ACSH Our Team page). That's important to note. http://nypost.com/2012/12/23/big-pay-low-payoff-at-nyc-nonprofit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.133.193 (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2017‎

I noticed this but I haven't found an announcement of his retirement. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you're Bill Gates, non-profits don't generally announce retirements. He's now listed as "Emeritus" on their Our Team page. http://acsh.org/our-team He also hasn't written anything since Feb 2016. So yeah, he's retired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.109.60.210 (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course, but it would be nice to say that explicitly, and include when he retired. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Gilbert Ross controversy' section still has a 'neutrality of this section is disputed.' though the content is all cited and I don't see a discussion here about the dispute other than the above, which appears to be resolved. Is there any argument in favor of keeping the tag?Dialectric (talk) 17:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the tag is related to the discussion above, "Only Allowing Criticism But Not Praise Violates Neutrality." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:57, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is ACSH really pro-industry?

Look at these articles they wrote. They're incredibly harsh toward several Big Pharma companies. "Pharmaceuticals (Aka Valeant) Hits A New Low" "Valeant (Somehow) Hits Another Low: Torturing Dying People" "Nexium: The Dark Side Of Pharma"

Then there's this:

"If ACSH Is A Corporate Shill, We're Really Bad At It" So, that could go into a "Criticism response" subsection, perhaps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.133.193 (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2017

We have citations to the New York Times calling the ACSH a "chemical-industry front group," the Washington Post calling it an "industry-friendly group," and Mother Jones calling it "pro-industry." So, unless with have reliable sources saying it's not pro-industry, this descriptor is both verifiable and neutral. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As Dr. F says, the question is not what it is as what it's described as by reliable sources. Let's see (I've surveyed news articles, seeking to avoid op-eds):

New York Times 1981: "a consumer health group" and "a nonprofit group ... generally takes a more politically conservative view of health issues than other study groups." (article reports that group opposed banning of 2,4,5-T)
New York Times 1989: "a consumer education and advocacy group that frequently opposes Federal regulatory programs"
New York Times 1998: "a nonprofit group, receives 40 percent of its financing from corporations, including food manufacturers."
New York Times 2015: "a pro-industry advocacy group"
Washington Post 1998: "True enough, ACSH gets much of its funding from industry groups and corporations and many of its positions are friendly to industry."
Washington Post 1984: "group with many advisers close to the food industry"
Washington Post 2000: "a nonprofit organization that gets extensive funding from chemical and manufacturing industries--and is widely seen as an industry front group."
Washington Post 2000: "an industry funded nonprofit group focusing on food, chemicals, drugs and the environment"
Science (magazine) 2010: "a nonprofit organization with industry support"
LA Times 2004: "a New York-based consumer education consortium"
LA Times 2003: "With one notable exception -- tobacco -- the ACSH generally sides with industry on every health controversy ... Some of these stances are well-supported by science. ... On the other hand, the group also dismisses any suggestion that phthalate compounds in plastics pose health risks, a threat that most experts say is still an open question."
LA Times 2013: "an organization that seeks to bring scientific facts to political debates"
USA Today 2014: "an advocacy group"

It's pretty clear from the sources that "pro-industry" or "industry-friendly" is a fair description. The organization does some good work in combating myths and nobody doubts that there are respected scientists and physicians involved in it, but it certainly would not be fair to say or imply (by omission) that its work is somehow limited to promoting evidence-based policy or "pure science advocacy." For example, the group has spoken out against a sugary drinks tax and published polemical stuff like "The EPA is Hungry for More Power" (attributed to "ACSH Staff"); or this post on their website (attacking "climate alarmists" and describing Al Gore as "Still Demented After All These Years"). These are highly controversial positions on public health policy and environmental policy that aren't clearly related to any established scientific consensus. Which is just fine, all the power to them — but our article should reflect the fact that ACSH is enmeshed in public debates and does tend to take a particular approach. --Neutrality^talk 06:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"As Dr. F says, the question is not what it is as what it's described as by reliable sources" I don't agree that Wikipedia has no interest in discerning truth but only reporting what other people say. Ignoring facts that are as plain as day (such as that ACSH criticizes Big Pharma) does not benefit Wikipedia readers. If the NYT doesn't know that, then that says something terrible about the state of NYT journalism, and Wikipedia should serve as a much needed corrective. Besides, the term pro-industry carries baggage. I think an opening like this would be far more appropriate: The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH or The Council) is a science education nonprofit organization founded in 1978 by Elizabeth Whelan. Its stated mission is to "support evidence-based science and medicine," and it is perceived as being friendly to industrial science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.133.193 (talk) 00:34, 28 February 2017

No one is suggesting ignoring facts that are plain as day. No one is stopping you from adding content about ACSH's criticism of Big Pharma--but that doesn't change the fact that three highly reputable news sources have identified ACSH as pro-industry. If you have a problem with the reliability of this assessment by the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Mother Jones, you're free to raise the issue at WP:RSN. Good luck. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a rewording is in order, Howe about we say that it is an organization generally regarded as being pro-industry. RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 17:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would violate our neutrality policy, which says that reliably sourced facts should not be presented as opinions. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, nevermind, it seems that they are pro-industry. It might be good to include, although, the groups criticism of the pharmaceutical industry, possibly in the issues advocacy section. RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 00:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with that if it were supported by secondary sources and proportionally balanced with the group's support for the pharmaceutical industry. (In one of the articles linked to at the beginning of this discussion, ACSH pharmaceutal director Josh Bloom started with, "I am usually supportive of the pharmaceutical industry.") --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ACSH from a former insider

I was administrative director at ACSH, and this is my experience with the organization and more. I cannot post about myself to the entry, of course. Nicmart (talk) 02:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, interesting read. You're a good writer. I see there are three reliable sources listed at the bottom of your post (1,2,3). Do you feel that content from those sources is being missed or underemphasized in our article? If so do you have any specific suggestions? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on American Council on Science and Health. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag

ForceFive, please explain your POV tagging of the article, bearing in mind that reputable newspapers are not ACSH's "competitors." Or maybe I've misunderstood your edit summaries. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looked odd to see a group is "pro-industry" yet the site says it is an education non-profit. Claiming to be a non-profit while being a pro-industry trade group is illegal. The IRS would have caught them. Your repeated undoing of edits that are different than what environmental groups claim suggests this is a POV issue, as is your not even allowing a POV tag to go through a neutral process. Removing it without due course is a violation of Wikipedia guidelines. talk —Preceding undated comment added 07:10, 25 September 2017‎

We follow the sources. Stop adding the tag. Alexbrn (talk) 14:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are being controlled by the same person. All edits are being undone. That is the definition of a POV issue. ForceFive —Preceding undated comment added 07:26, 25 September 2017

No it isn't. We must follow the sources. Please learn to sign and indent your posts properly. Alexbrn (talk) 14:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ForceFive, the cited sources clearly indicate that multiple independent, reliable sources describe the group as pro-industry. That is all our verifiability and neutrality policies require. Removing this descriptor because it's not used by the organization itself would be non-neutral. And to boot, "pro-science" and "pro-industry" are not mutually exclusive; an organization can be both pro-science and pro-industry at the same time. I happen to think that the "pro-science" descriptor is unduly self-serving. If you can locate an independent reliable source that identifies ACSH as "pro-science," then I will gladly add that label to the article. In the meantime, I have "demoted" the tag to an inline tag since that seems to be the basis of your concern. And as I don't think your concern is grounded in our neutrality policy I support removing it altogether. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, when multiple Wikipedia users tell you, DrFleischman, that you've got a POV issue, your response is to deny it and remove the POV tag. Yeah, that's EXACTLY what a POV is. And you've clearly got something against ACSH. This has to be one of the most obscure articles on the internet, and yet here you are, reverting legitimate edits and arguing with anyone who disagrees. Do you have something personal against ACSH? Your behavior here strongly suggests you do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.199.83 (talk) 10:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Legitimacy of Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) as a News Source

CSPI is an illegitimate "news" source. It's an activist group. https://www.activistfacts.com/organizations/13-center-for-science-in-the-public-interest/

It makes absolutely no sense to criticize ACSH as being pro-industry activists if the people making that allegation are themselves activists on the other side of the issue. That would be like asking a Pepsi marketing person what he thinks of Coca-Cola. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.199.83 (talk) 09:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The CSPI isn't being used as a news source. They are clearly described as an advocacy group and their content is being described with in-text attribution as a criticism, not as a fact. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The New, New POV Tag

This POV tag stays indefinitely until ridiculous "sources" like CSPI and Mother Jones are removed. DrFleischman has been reverting legitimate edits on this article for years. Any necessary edit is usually reverted within hours. Clearly, he has some sort of ideological conflict of interest. Who else has alerts sent to them whenever some obscure Wikipedia article is edited? Very strange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.199.83 (talk) 10:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining your concerns on the talk page. Unfortunately your edits aren't consistent with Wikipedia community standards and past consensus. The use of these sources is perfectly appropriate and hardly "ridiculous." CSPI is being used here not to assert facts but to present noteworthy criticism of the ACSH, with in-text attribution. Mother Jones is different; biases aside, it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and has therefore been deemed a reliable source at WP:RSN. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if the tag is just about those two sources then we should remove it and add {{pov-inline}} tags for the sentences you're concerned about. Or better yet, {{rs}} tags. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The criticism made by user 76.104.199.83 is legitimate. Simply stating that Mother Jones is accurate because Wikipedia says so is tautological. In an age of Fake News and hyperpartisanship, maybe it's time to update Wikipedia's community standards when far better sources of information are available than CSPI and Mother Jones. I've read ACSH's website a couple of times. The website doesn't even remotely resemble what its Wikipedia entry says about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.111.178 (talk) 00:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS-- I think a sensible compromise might be to remove the "pro-industry" reference in the introductory paragraph. From the start, that immediately biases the article. Any criticisms about whatever pro-industry leanings ACSH might or might not have should be relegated to Criticism subsections. It's not appropriate for the introduction, let alone the opening sentence. I'd be curious what 76.104.199.83 thinks about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.111.178 (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are "both" going to get blocked if you keep playing this game. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

76.104.199.83, can you please identify specifically what's non-neutral about the article? Is it the use of the CSPI and Mother Jones sources? Is it the use of "pro-industry?" --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're a fraud. You just undid every single legitimate edit. I'm reporting you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.111.178 (talk) 03:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Science education nonprofit."

No secondary source currently used in the article describes the council's purpose as science education (and it's a self-serving claim, so we can't use WP:ABOUTSELF for it even if a source from the council itself could be found.) If nothing else, it obviously can't be in the lead when it isn't even mentioned in the article body. Similarly, we have to be extremely cautious about including anything self-serving in the article (especially in the lead) that is only cited to the organization itself. We can quote them, provided we're careful to make it clear that we're just quoting them (rather than stating it as objective fact) - but we already have a quote from them in the lead for their stated mission, so it seems undue to add more. Beyond that, we should rely on what others have said about them, not their self-descriptions. --Aquillion (talk) 12:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this edit apart from the word advocacy, which requires sourcing.

I disagree with this edit unless you can source "advocacy".

I agree with this edit removing "science education" unless we can source it independently, though I note the nly dispute appears to be from obvious cranks like USRTK. Guy (Help!)

"Advocacy" was based on the related section in the article (which I think paraphrases its sources properly), but the organization itself describes itself as follows: The American Council on Science and Health is a pro-science consumer advocacy organization; and I don't think saying they engage in advocacy is self-serving. Mother Jones says that it "bills itself" that way, so perhaps we could word it to make it clear that that's a self-description. --Aquillion (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Partially funded by Monsanto?

How can it be partially funded by Monsanto if Monsanto literally doesn’t exist anymore? 71.218.230.212 (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The edit was reverted. This is already covered much more neutrally in the Funding section. Guy (Help!) 15:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trustee forced out due to criticism of ACSH and communications with outsiders.

Summary of events surrounding the demanded resignation of long-time trustee James Enstrom with links to his communications with ACSH and minutes of a board meeting. Also, the minutes show that ACSH lost its lease due to non-payment. Found here. Nicmart (talk) 19:08, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]