Talk:American Chemical Society

message: Hi,
Could someone maybe write some subheader about the American Chemical Society Award(s) and make a redirect from the red link? Thanks! effeietsanders 12:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Award 

message: Today I enlarged the list of ACS presidents.  Should the list be arranged differently, perhaps in columns? - Astrochemist 04:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the list of past presidents to a navigational box (which I thought was better). The anonimous disident reverted my edit. Any idea why? Mgnelu (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea what User:Anonymous Dissident thought, but I think the navbox looks pretty bad on this page. Instead of a columnar list of items, there is a ragged set of rows: very hard to scan to find a certain year or person. Its use on the individuals' page isn't much better: still difficult to find info, but also hard to find simple things such as "who was previous/next?", again because it's tabular data presented in prose form. In addition, it's huge, taking up half or more of many of those people's individual pages. The navbox doesn't really serve any purpose other than collecting all the names in a difficult-to-use set; I think this is much less clear than a list in the main page and more confusing than a succession box on the person-pages. DMacks (talk) 20:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks! DMacks (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Past presidents 

message: I removed a link to the ACS sourcewatch.com wiki under External links since it violates Wikipedia's policy on external links.  It states that one should avoid "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors."  The sourcewatch.com page was authored by only two editors. This link clearly violates the policy. If there is valuable information on the sourcewatch.com wiki page, then it can be integrated into here. M stone 16:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At best, an extlink to this material would be usable as a citation to support some content. Just tossing it in as a loose extlink isn't good even if it were a reliable source because there's no explanation of it or obvious context or usefulness of that link. Wikipedia is a cited encyclopedia, not just a pile of links. DMacks 16:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: In response to the thought that "ACS Wiki is there, why not this one?", the ACS Chemical Biology Wiki is not there as a content-site or source of information about ACS, but rather is part of ACS's actual content and/or services (perhaps it should be annotated as such?). DMacks 01:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the "ACS Wiki" and two other links as irrelevant. It is a wiki related to ACS Chemical Biology, one of the dozens of journals published by ACS. As such, I don't see how it is relevant for a link section about ACS in general. Really, the only link that should remain IMO is the official ACS website, although perhaps the CAS and ACS Publications links are not all that unreasonable given that they are major ACS divisions. (The other links that I removed were another ACS Chemical Biology page and a news story about the ACS/Pubchem scandal. Random news articles don't belong as external links either, although they may be used as references.) --Itub 14:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable to me. DMacks 19:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with Sourcewatch.com external link 

message: I just now created a reference section using the three URLs in the text.  I seem to recall seeing an old book on ACS history.  Can it be found and mentioned somewhere on the page? - Astrochemist 15:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: They seem to be at least partly a lobbying group on behalf of the chemical industry.  This needs to be explained.  Right now there are controversies mentioned with no background information.  How can we know if the president of the organization is being paid too much without knowing what the purpose of the organization is? Jaque Hammer (talk) 00:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You should read the page before you add tags.  ACS is a non-profit organization that supports the field of chemistry.  The American Chemistry Council is the organization that represents the interests of American chemical companies. M stone (talk) 06:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Lobbying groups can also be organized as non-profits.  Anyway the article needs to be more clear as to exactly what the purpose of the group is. Jaque Hammer (talk) 11:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how much clearer it could be. It says in the first sentence "supports scientific inquiry in the field of chemistry."  Under the founding of the ACS it also says it will “prove a powerful and healthy stimulus to original research, … would awaken and develop much talent now wasting in isolation, … [bring] members of the association into closer union, and ensure a better appreciation of our science and its students on the part of the general public.” It is a professional society and its activities are listed included lobbying. M stone (talk) 12:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: I am an employee of the American Chemical Society. It has come to our attention that the logo shown on the Wikipedia page about our organization is inaccurate. The current version is shown on our website, www.acs.org, has a different treatment around the Phoenix' eye, no faint horizontal line through the lower portion, and includes the text components "ACS Chemistry for Life". Would the editors agree that the image on Wikipedia should be updated or removed?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by KLindblom (talk • contribs) 16:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I really don't think there is a problem with the logo seen here: it looks better than the one on ACS.org. And I don't think that Wikipedia needs to list the slogan. If you have an image w/o the faint (very) line, upload it, but it is quite possible that someone will remove it if it contains the ACS' slogan, which is self-promotional. Jack B108 (talk) 21:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ACS Logo 

message: Scale of Prices" chapter seems to be valid. I checked the "Houses of Commons" document. It is very balanced. This is an important matter, which should be added, because it is relevant for the whole community...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riccione (talk • contribs) 09:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with increasing cost of scientific journals is not one that is unique to ACS journals.  To use this document that discusses problems with the industry as a whole, worldwide, to criticize the ACS's cost of one of it's journal seems inappropriate to me.  The content violates one of Wikipedia's core principles, WP:NPOV. It is clearly a one-sided criticism that doesn't include ACS's point of view and leaves out important context about this being a long-term worldwide trend in scientific publishing.  It is odd that it uses out of date information to make its point which suggests cherry-picking of data.  ChemNerd (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

text: If it is not going to be fixed, I think it should simply be removed.  ChemNerd (talk) 10:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be removed.  It is not just a feature of the ACS so if it is anywhere should be in a more general page about scientific publishing.Chemical Engineer (talk) 13:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the removal because the issue is not specific to the ACS. M stone (talk) 01:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

text: Please reframe from threatening other editors. We are not vandals. We have real concerns with this section. M stone (talk) 10:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

text: Multiple other editors dispute its inclusion (at all, or at least as written), and there is scant support for it. It was fine to add it, but it's not fine to keep re-adding it while there is the dispute, and especially because the dispute centers on potentially unwarranted negative viewpoint against the article subject (better to err on the side of caution/exclusion). DMacks (talk) 13:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

text: First of all, please stop calling other people's behavior vandalism.  Either you don't know what that word means or you are intentionally insulting others.  In either case, you shouldn't be using that word.  Second, the section that you keep adding has been repeatedly removed by other editors.  Wikipedia content should reflect editors' consensus, and clearly there is not yet consensus on what content to include.  When agreement is reached on how the content should read, then it can be added to the article.  But it should not be added before then.  ChemNerd (talk) 11:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

text: As for the modified content, it still presents a completely one sided point of view - one that is entirely critical of the organization.  The section needs have some balance.  What is the position of the ACS on this topic?  How has it defended its actions?  The section also needs context.  If the article is going to criticize ACS journal price increases, how do those price increases compare to other journal prices during the same time period?  ChemNerd (talk) 12:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that Riccione has only ever edited this page and might not be aware of the way the Wikipedia works. Our opposition to the addition might indeed appear unreasonable. M stone (talk) 00:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

text: I agree with M stone; the opposition to the addition was unreasonable. During the last months Riccione edited the chapter due to the criticism of ChemNerd.--178.3.155.37 (talk) 12:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect you are mis-interpretting User:M stone's comment and inverting its meaning. DMacks (talk) 09:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose Riccione's additions. M stone (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scale of Prices 

message: The Divisions section could use updating, as mentions only five historic divisions when there are currently 32 technical divisions. I am willing to contribute to Wikipedia's coverage of this section, and I invite comments from users before making such changes. Would users prefer to see a bullet list of technical divisions with brief descriptions, similar to the example provided on American Physical Society, or do others have a better suggestion?
Please note my COI statement on my User Page. KLindblom (talk) 16:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: * Again, I would agree that the information on the current page is sadly out of date... Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: * Revisions made Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Divisions 

message: The executive compensation conflict deals with events from 2002-2004, that don't seem to have a lot of current relevance.  Does anyone feel that it is essential to keep this in? Its removal has been proposed at least once before. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Executive compensation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on American Chemical Society. 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/20160113022110/http://saicsc-acs.com/wcms/ to http://saicsc-acs.com/wcms/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070810030827/http://community.acs.org/journals/acbcct/cs/WIKI/tabid/54/Default.aspx to http://community.acs.org/journals/acbcct/cs/WIKI/tabid/54/Default.aspx
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) 16:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on American Chemical Society. 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/20090327031227/http://portal.acs.org/portal/fileFetch/C/WPCP_008491/pdf/WPCP_008491.pdf to http://portal.acs.org/portal/fileFetch/C/WPCP_008491/pdf/WPCP_008491.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120729202551/http://community.acs.org/ to http://community.acs.org/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111002143642/http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/corg/content?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=PP_TRANSITIONMAIN&node_id=830&use_sec=false&sec_url_var=region1&__uuid=d3c8817f-e1ad-46c5-8c8d-0092ec3e1feb to http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/corg/content?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=PP_TRANSITIONMAIN&node_id=830&use_sec=false&sec_url_var=region1&__uuid=d3c8817f-e1ad-46c5-8c8d-0092ec3e1feb
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) 16:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: I'm an employee with ACS. I updated the number of international chapters as is listed on acs.org. Is this okay? LetsGetChemical (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the update. DMacks (talk) 00:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  International Chemical Sciences Chapters