Talk:American Council on Science and Health

message: 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  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)
thread_title:  Taken from the main article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tufts University accuracy scale 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New POV Tag 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tobacco policy 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Reliability of Sources Resulting in POV issue 

message: 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)
replies: text: WP:RS would be nice.  Shot info (talk) 07:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: , 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)
replies: text:  Nothing that I would consider a reliable source, but opinions vary. Nicmart (talk) 01:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Industry ringer 

message: The beginning of this section is completely botched. Perhaps someone wants to fix it. Nicmart (talk) 01:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  History and Mission 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  NY Post 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Gil Ross

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  ACSH from a former insider 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140811204151/http://acsh.org/2014/06/fracking-safe-efficient-path-energy-independence/ to http://acsh.org/2014/06/fracking-safe-efficient-path-energy-independence/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150309225313/http://acsh.org/2003/12/where-did-acsh-come-from/ to http://acsh.org/2003/12/where-did-acsh-come-from/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100315041102/http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/item_SSUy9hbaXk6UdgWoEENUyO%3Bjsessionid%3DD7769A5E94EF8D55798BED119E0B0C13 to http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/item_SSUy9hbaXk6UdgWoEENUyO%3Bjsessionid%3DD7769A5E94EF8D55798BED119E0B0C13
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100315035200/http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/item_m6F7jmDaC1W7ACTKKdUzcO%3Bjsessionid%3D9893BE7152D2B31F4BDAB97349E7AF9B to http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/item_m6F7jmDaC1W7ACTKKdUzcO%3Bjsessionid%3D9893BE7152D2B31F4BDAB97349E7AF9B
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100211145035/http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.1796/healthissue_detail.asp to http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.1796/healthissue_detail.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100508090219/http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.1813/healthissue_detail.asp to http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.1813/healthissue_detail.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100316033239/http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/item_q2eJH4v86ZGTrdwVuNzqBP%3Bjsessionid%3D0D557E9611975D91AECD9B5D6AAD8DD0 to http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/item_q2eJH4v86ZGTrdwVuNzqBP%3Bjsessionid%3D0D557E9611975D91AECD9B5D6AAD8DD0
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: The Legitimacy of Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) as a News Source 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Also, if the tag is just about those two sources then we should remove it and add  tags for the sentences you're concerned about. Or better yet,  tags. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I think you are "both" going to get blocked if you keep playing this game. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: The New, New POV Tag

message: 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)
replies: text: The edit was reverted. This is already covered much more neutrally in the Funding section. Guy (Help!) 15:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Partially funded by Monsanto?  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Trustee forced out due to criticism of ACSH and communications with outsiders.