This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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
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).
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)
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)
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)
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:
Meanwhile, the following was added:
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)
Very happy to discuss and work together to make the entry the best it can be. Kozitt ( talk) 18:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
The beginning of this section is completely botched. Perhaps someone wants to fix it. Nicmart ( talk) 01:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
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)
Furthermore, a section discussing media appearances was entirely removed, despite the fact that it's very relevant.
STOP undoing the "dispute" tag. Now, you're just blatantly violating Wikipedia rules.
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)
Here's a good source with a lot of useful material to be added, if anyone wants to take a crack at it:
-- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 22:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
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
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)
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
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)
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
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)
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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
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).
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)
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)
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)
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:
Meanwhile, the following was added:
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)
Very happy to discuss and work together to make the entry the best it can be. Kozitt ( talk) 18:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
The beginning of this section is completely botched. Perhaps someone wants to fix it. Nicmart ( talk) 01:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
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)
Furthermore, a section discussing media appearances was entirely removed, despite the fact that it's very relevant.
STOP undoing the "dispute" tag. Now, you're just blatantly violating Wikipedia rules.
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)
Here's a good source with a lot of useful material to be added, if anyone wants to take a crack at it:
-- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 22:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
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
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)
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
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)
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
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)
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)