Talk:Union of Concerned Scientists

message: Sorry about the multiple edits. I'm not trying to start an edit war, I'm just attempting to make a readable article that maintains NPOV. I think the recent edits critical of the UCS are very helpful and are needed to give a balenced viewpoint of the organization. I moved the section on positions forward in the article because I felt that was what a reader would be most likely to be looking for when they read the article, not because I was trying to "bury" the name question. Sayeth 15:56, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
::I've got no problems with your edits (or multiple edits in general).  In fact, I think they make the article better.  Well done.  Sorry I didn't document the changes I made here but I felt they were relatively straightforward.  No edit war from where I sit.  This is the way wiki articles get better, right?  I wish more people took your balanced approach to editing.  I don't mean to gush but I'm dealing with some difficult people over on some other pages and it is a relief to deal with something who behaves sensibly.  Now that I've got that out of my system...   ;->  --JonGwynne 18:29, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: multiple edits

message: I notice that VSmith is still persisting in his unlabelled, undocumented and unsupported reversions - in clear violation of the injunction in place on this page.  If you're going to revert something you are required to support your reversion.  So far you have not.  Are you going to start soon or is this just another example of knee-jerk reversions of something you find personally objectionable but are unwilling or unable to discuss?  --JonGwynne 02:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: VSmith's persistent violation of wikipedia policies

message: Copied here from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/William M. Connolley and Cortonin#Temporary injunction:
Since revert wars between the Cortonin and William M. Connolley have continued through this arbitration, both users are hereby barred from reverting any article related to climate change more than once per 24 hour period. Each and every revert (partial or full) needs to be backed up on the relevant talk page with reliable sources (such as peer reviewed journals/works, where appropriate). Administrators can regard failure to abide by this ruling as a violation of the WP:3RR and act accordingly. Recent reverts by Cortonin
 
by William M. Connolley
 
 
 
Additional reverts by others involved in these revert wars may result in them joining this case. 
--mav 22:50, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temporary injunction 

message: I don't know very much about the Tides group. My guess is that someone who doesn't like the group is trying to paint everyone they ever sent money too with a broad brush. Its called guilt by association, in the US, as well as several other modern states, a person or an organization is innocent until proven guilty. If the Union did something they should not have done, or have misrepresented their purpose - one could make an accusation. But creating a link to a donor for spite is ridiculous. If Hitler rose from the grave and sent George W. Bush a fiver - would it then be fair to say that Hitler donated money to the Bush Campaign? - even if it is true, its irrelevent. If Tides supports unpopular positions, it doesn't mean they don't also support popular positions, and who to say why they supported the Union? So in short, that accusation needs more facts than mere existence to be relevent.
Benjamin Gatti 02:52, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tides 

message: That picture is just bizarre; it's also only very tangientally related to the UCS. How about removing it?
--128.32.198.103 20:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: I am readding my additions.  UCS has detractors.  Instead of reverting, please discuss what objections you have.--Tbeatty 02:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: UCS as a political organization that has supporters and detractors

message: They have an opinion and rating on UCS.  They are a legitmate organization.  While their conclusion should not be represented as fact, it is valid to express their opinion as long as it is cited as their opinion.  This is done throughout Wikipedia (as are views by UCS) and is part of NPOV policy.  Comments?  --Tbeatty 04:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the mention of critiques of any organization should be included in that organization's article so long as the critiques are 1)notable and made by notable sources 2)not libelous and 3)don't overwhelm the factual content of the article. Sayeth 17:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Capital Research Center is a Right Wing organization, they have an agenda. This entry, if not outright eliminated, certainly shouldn't have the prominence in the article that it does. --dowser 04:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some would say that UCS is a Left Wing Organization and has an agenda.  since labels such as "liberal" or "left-wing" are opposed, sourcing an opinion by a notable organization is all that is left. --Tbeatty 15:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

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

message: USC is certainly nonprofit, and should be labeled as such.  I don't understand why it was removed before.
How about writing that while they're theoretically nonpartisan, their positions are usually considered to be on the liberal side of the political spectrum? I consider that to be both accurate and a good compromise. Ladlergo 15:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: non-profit was fine.  It was replaced along the way.  Not sure why. I deleted non-partisan as I think it doesn't describe them accurately.  Certain users object to "liberal" or "left-wing" to be ascribed to anything associated with them.  --Tbeatty 18:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter what they call themselves, only what they are--Capitalister 21:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Capitalister, please stop adding "liberal" to the tag at the expense of non-disputed terms.  They are certainly nonprofit, and they are certainly an advocacy group.  That they are liberal is a result of their stances, not inherent; it is entirely possible that they could allign themselves with a Republican stance on a scientific issue.  If you are not satisfied, please note the "radical left" tag in the second section, where it more properly belongs. Ladlergo 13:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I actually agree with you.  THey are liberal.  Unfortunately others don't agree with us.  IT is therefore required to find otherwise to provide this information.  THis is the reason I added the CRC rating.  --Tbeatty 19:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disagree that they're liberal, but I don't believe that the opening paragraph is the appropriate location for that.  As I said, it's a result of their stances, and as such should be put in that section. Ladlergo 23:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nonprofit vs. Nonpartisan vs. Liberal

message: There is no question that the UCS is a controversial group, and there's no reason that mentioning it can't be addressed in this article.  The question is how to make it NPOV.  
I think that although it's accurate to label the UCS as a "liberal" organization, they do not market themselves as such, so it is unfortunately POV to use the word "liberal" in the first sentence of the article.  
However, I don't think there's a problem in citing one or two groups who do characterize the UCS as "liberal", since most people who are aware of the distinction between liberal and conservative would label them as such.
Personally I am an inclusionist, not an exclusionist.  I don't have a problem listing the people who disagree with the UCS (and there are lots of them), but neither do I have a problem in rebuttals to UCS opponents. --FairNBalanced 08:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the article itself is very small, so I'm preemptively stating my position that I don't think this new section is "too long" --FairNBalanced 08:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New "Controversy" Section 

message: I do not KNOW exactly what UCS is - politically.  However, from my experience they play politics and word games A LOT.  Some years ago I was making a (3 billion dollar) proposal summary to the board of my corporation.  With that kind of money on the line I expected to be savagely attacked even if it was diablo advocatum.  I wanted to use some data from UCS.  However, I wanted to be prepared to justify using UCS.  So, I sent a letter to UCS - no response.  I phoned.  My question was:  What is the percentage breakdown of your membership by scientist, technical, other?  I was told flat out that their membership rolls were private.  Could I get a breakdown?  Well they wouldn't waste their time doing it.
Now, common sense tells us that if UCS was 100% scientists, they would be screaming it from the rooftops.  Their credibility would (justifiably) soar.  If UCS were 0% scientist, they would hide that datum like it was sacred.
I don't know the correct percentage.  Draw you own conclusions.
71.197.106.123 00:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect, I think that you miss the point. All you have to do is read their website to see that they have open membership, which means that UCS members could be anything from scientists to single moms. As a member, one is supporting the agenda of a Union of Concerned Scientists, not pledging to be a scientist or to become one. Just like many groups, UCS's supporters/members don't make their policy, they merely fund it. Athene cunicularia 20:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Membership does not imply scholarship. The non-scientist "members" of the UCS do not contribute to publications. Being a Republican Party member does not make you a politician, yet to say "the Republican Party is not 100% politicians, and thus all Republican Party pamphlets have no political basis" would sound ridiculous, no? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.104.174.179 (talk) 14:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the point is subtly different.  Why do they hide (and they did) their scientist percentage?  If they have two scientists, they are semantically correct in calling themselves "union of concerned scientists" (plural) and they would lose a LOT of veracity.  I doubt the situation is that extreme, but if they have hundreds of "scientists" and most of those are lab technicians involved in biometrics (or something) then they lose a lot of influence when the speak about more hard technical stuff (like atomics, computers, etc.).  I just want to know "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".  When someone deliberately hides something, I get suspicious.  I may be wrong, but I'm still suspicious.71.197.106.123 16:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that anyone can sign up should be enough to answer your question. If everyone can sign up, but not everyone is a scientist, then not everyone must be a scientist. Again, if you look at some of their material, you will see that their goal is to base their policies on science or scientific findings, not require that everyone has written 5 scholarly articles. A lot of people pull the liberal card because UCS sometimes values environmental protections over profit $, but guess what? Environmental Science and Ecology are science too, too.Athene cunicularia 13:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My personal (and professional) experince w UCS Section 

message: :Image:UCSlogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:UCSlogo.jpg

message: I had tried to consolidate and clarify the crit section because the most recent revision jumped around with the sources cited. I did not omit any info that was previously included. I had tried to leave the sources intact, but accidentally removed the one by Capital Research Center. I'll re-insert it. I intentionally removed the aside about "pro tobacco, pro meat, etc. lobbying group" because I don't think that it has much relevancy. The aside seems intended more to characterize the source of the quote, but I think that the existing information is sufficient to show that the critics are also openly biased.Athene cunicularia 15:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with it now, I changed the wording around slightly and removed the word pro since that is subjective. --Theblog 02:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds good. Thanks!Athene cunicularia 10:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I cleaned up the crit section again. I think that it would be best to keep it simple, to avoid having to get into the lengthy backgrounds of both the UCS and its critics. The crit section should be straightforward and list the claims, but not appear overtly biased in itself.Athene cunicularia 19:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Crit Revision

message: Can we get a show of support or opposition for the removal of Andy's parenthetical?
I support the removal of the aside for these reasons.
* The criticism is an interpretation of Falwell's words, but is not a criticism that Falwell made, therefore it is not useful, under WP:OR.
* The criticism has already been made or the difference has already been noted, therefore it may not be necessary to include a criticism based on original research.
* The criticism drawn from Falwell's choice of words may or may not reflect Falwell's original intention (how does anyone know for sure)?
* It could even be a typo seeing as though the dispute concerns only the two words, "these scientists."
* Falwell's choice of words could be technically correct, since scientists do determine the UCS's policy.Athene cunicularia (talk) 04:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasons to oppose [[User:Andyvphil]]'s interpretation of Falwell quote as an aside

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

message: I've trimmed some stuff from "Criticism", because it was sourced from right wing websites and thus represents something rather minor  (being web-based) and primarily political oppositionism (one would not expect the religious right to have coherent critiques of scientists, and all the removed material suggests is that indeed they don't).  --TS 01:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Trimmed

message: So, is this a completely neutral organization, or does it have a recognizable political bias which we can describe?
If we (contributors) cannot agree on whether UCS has a bias, should we:
#Say that UCS is politically neutral, or
#Say that UCS and its supporters claim to be politically neutral, but that its political opponents call it "leftist"?
I think these are important questions. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that you can only call an organization "biased" if it's the consensus of reliable sources, and the Criticism section does a pretty good job of rounding up what's available, as far as I can tell. If the UCS has endorsed certain political candidates, that could be a way to illustrate their policy, but I'm not sure that "we (contributors)" should be saying anything. We should be letting the sources do the talking. Regarding your comment below, it seems to me that your perceived one-sidedness doesn't reveal much more than what we already know: that they advocate for science. It would seem that the government, which often tries to reconcile science with business, would therefore often be their target.Athene cunicularia (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for jumping in, especially here. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Type of advocacy

message: I read a few sections from their "A-Z" guide, and it's extremely one-sided. It accuses the federal government of suppressing speech or publication by federally-employed scientists, where their views differed from that of the administration. The tacit assumption is that the UCS position on these issues is the "scientific" one, and that the government is politically biased. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Government Interference

message: The "criticism" section is largely given over to fringe groups, which is inappropriate according to WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE.  The fringe criticism should be trimmed or removed and replaced with mainstream criticism. Gamaliel (talk) 19:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A problem with trying to label any group or organization as leftist, liberal, conservative, or rightist is that the labels are not informative. Read the articles on these topics. They contain so many conditions and caveats as to make the labels useless. The articles go so far as to describe both liberal conservatism and conservative liberalism. If the terms are not informative, they should be dropped. MRC  does not appear to be a main stream source and including their opinion gives weight to a fringe source. The paragaraph about Singer and UCS should be deleted because it contains an opinion of one member of a tiny minority of scientists. The UCS statement duplicates information on other Wikipedia pages and is not germane to the article. It appears to be an attempt to subvert the NPOV by providing offsetting accusations. Edsilha (talk) 00:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Its actually worse than that with Singer, since the SEPP is Singer, and there is no indications that there are more members (since his wife left), therefore i've cut it as POV and UNDUE. As for the rest, i agree that the section is a WP:COATRACK by focusing on individuals, instead of trying to weight the critique (ie. individual opinion can be used - but it should be representative of a larger concern/opinion). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

text: The sections "Issue Stances" and "Press" provide enough information to permit the reader to decide how to classify UCS if they wish. The "Criticism" section cites the opinions of conservative to ultra-conservative organizations. Classifying the organization as leftist also adopts the conservative think tank practice of labeling environmental activist groups as left wing (i.e., environmentalist = left wing). Quoting Stossel seems inappropriate given that he appears to strongly oppose efforts to moderate climate change which the UCS supports. Considering the Wikipedia articles on climate change, Stossel is promoting the opinions of a tiny minority of scientists. Edsilha (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

text: As a followup to this, these are basically credible arguments made from well recognized published sources, and don't really fall under WP:FRINGE.  It does suffer from a NPOV problem because the entire section is organized as an attack.  The best response is to find verifiable sources that contradict these criticisms or provide related rejections, not to cripple or remove the section. i kan reed (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: The intro says: "The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) is a nonprofit science advocacy group based in the United States."
I don't think this is a fair description. UCS's main activity is not science advocacy. I would say it would be better to describe it as an advocacy or pressure group for various aims (renewable energy, nuclear disarmament and so on). It is not advocating "science". Ordinary Person (talk) 01:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: science advocacy group

message: A lot of the criticism section is just right-wing groups labelling the USC as leftists. Firstly, doesn't that just go without saying? (Right wing group accuses left wing group of being left wing, not surprising) Secondly how can this be regarded as criticism? Consider statements like "the conservative website NewsMax described the UCS as a "left-wing" organization that "receives substantial donations from liberal-leaning foundations." Now I'm not trying to say thet are not left-wing, but how is calling something what it is criticism? I don't see a criticism section on Newsmax's article saying they have been labelled as conservative. I've never seen a criticism section based upon a right-wing group recieveing money from a right-wing organisations. Of course they'd recieve money from right-wing organisations, am I the only person not surprised by this? Shortly I will be condenscing a large part of the criticim section with a broad statement along the lines of "they are frequently criticised for being left-wing by right-wing and conservative groups". I don't see any benifit of cellecting every time they've been called left wing. If you have a better fix for this issue I'm all ears. Freikorp (talk) 00:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is that really criticism? 

message: Hi - this page is fairly outdated and could use some quick updates. I am an employee of UCS and so won't make the edits myself, but I'd like to suggest them here.
In the "History" section, the financial information could be updated to include numbers through fiscal year 2012. That information is available on the same website referenced, Charity Navigator, who still awards UCS 4 stars.
:Done. Freikorp (talk) 11:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've given the book a brief mention in the same paragraph as the earlier one. Freikorp (talk) 11:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

text: Summary added. Freikorp (talk) 11:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

text: Since I don't have an awful lot of free time, and nobody else has taken an interest in this, any references you could provide would be helpful, thanks. Freikorp (talk) 11:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Having thought about this, I wonder if it's best to link to the UCS news page, which highlights media pickup: http://www.ucsusa.org/about/news-center. Since we received signficiant pickup this may be the easiest option. Scientificsolutions (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

text: Those two works have been added. Freikorp (talk) 11:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: One potential way to keep this updated would be to link to the complete list of publications (http://www.ucsusa.org/search/reports). Since we produce multiple reports, fact sheets, and other materials every month, this may be the best option. Scientificsolutions (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggesting multiple edits and updates 

message: There are many on the real left that criticize this group as a tentacle of finance/industrial capitalist monopolies.  In effect it pursues a reactionary agenda by subordinating science to meet the aims of the preconceived objectives of Imperialism.  Many on the real left see AGW or Anthropogenic Global Warming as a reactionary imperialist policy to enrich finance/derivative and industrial monopoly billionaire investors and that there is a perfectly valid argument for Climate Change without to invoke Co2, The Milankovitch Cycles.
:Articles talk pages are not for discussing the articles subject, they are for discussing how to improve the article. Get reliable sources to support your claims if you want a chance of the information being added to the article in any way. Freikorp (talk) 12:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the "real left"?  True Marxists?  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  UCS is conservative 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Union of Concerned Scientists. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050404170527/http://ucsusa.org:80/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1641 to http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1641
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061104140608/http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/systematic-interference-with.html to http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/systematic-interference-with.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Union of Concerned Scientists. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070804151438/http://www.ucsusa.org:80/global_warming/science/confronting-climate-change-in-the-gulf-coast.html to http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/confronting-climate-change-in-the-gulf-coast.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070821203843/http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/npp.pdf to http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/npp.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070716093043/http://www.ucsusa.org:80/scientific_integrity/interference/a-to-z-alphabetical.html to http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/a-to-z-alphabetical.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070713133547/http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/survey-summaries.html to http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/survey-summaries.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Union of Concerned Scientists. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071019045614/http://www.ucsusa.org:80/news/experts/ to http://www.ucsusa.org/news/experts/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070329205445/http://www.marshall.org:80/pdf/materials/289.pdf to http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/289.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070713214157/http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/scientist-statement.html to http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/scientist-statement.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070221101440/http://www.wired.com:80/news/medtech/0,1286,62339,00.html to http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,62339,00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070610121311/http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/another-contrived-missile-0033.html to http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/another-contrived-missile-0033.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070713050229/http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/epa-falls-short-0041.html to http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/epa-falls-short-0041.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110316220346/http://www.ucsusa.org:80/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_risk/safety/japan-nuclear-crisis-briefings.html to http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_risk/safety/japan-nuclear-crisis-briefings.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi - per previous edits above, I'm going to go ahead and update the board chair (it changed from James McCarthy to Anne Kapuscinski last October). Since this account is maintained by employees of UCS, we don't normally make changes to actual articles, but this being a factual change that has remained un-addressed, I'm taking the liberty to change it now. Please let us know if there is a better process for this. Scientificsolutions (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating board chair 

message: Per edits above, I'll add links to our most recent news pickup and publications. I may also remove the names under the "See also" section, as they are only representative of a small fraction of UCS staff and issues. Again, this is an account maintained by an employee of UCS, and in no way do I want to make changes that are problematic for Wiki's standards. Please let me know if there's a better way to approach this process. Thanks! Scientificsolutions (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this template was unwarranted. The user in question submitted a request that was not replied to in over a year, and the edits themselves were not biased or promotional. New editors cannot be expected to know all of Wikipedia's guidelines. The COI template implies biased content and/or malicious intent. Neither of these issues has occurred here. I think this issue could have been resolved without having to add the tag in the first place. , I suggest you remove it now. There's no ongoing problem; the editor in questions is clearly willing to co-operate with all guidelines once he is made aware of them. Freikorp (talk) 23:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi , thanks for your help. I'm still seeing this template and at a bit of a loss as to what I can do. As suggested above, I'll use the request edit feature in the future (wasn't aware of that until now), but really need to get the COI removed, as it implies the article is somehow compromised, which it isn't (did my best to do this the right way!). Advice? Can you help? WCM at UCS (talk) 19:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Also, in case it wasn't clear, this is the same user (Scientificsolutions)--I got a username change, on Exemplo's recommendation.WCM at UCS (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's customary to not remove templates just because we disagree with them as per point 4 of 'When not to remove' at Help:Maintenance template removal. However as per point 6 of of 'When to remove' at that article, its also customary for the tagging editor to initiate a discussion on the article's talk page to justify placing the tag, which was not done. I've pinged the editor in question to this discussion, though as you can see they have not yet replied, despite the fact that their edit history shows they have been quite active on Wikipedia (making no less than 100 edits to other articles) since then. Removing the tag now doesn't violate any of the five points at 'When not to remove', as the issue was resolved the instant you were informed of the correct procedure for going about this in the future. Accordingly I see absolutely no reason why it should remain in place. I'm removing it now. Freikorp (talk) 05:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating publications/news 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Union of Concerned Scientists. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20070713104513/http://www.ucsusa.org/greatlakes/ to http://www.ucsusa.org/greatlakes/
*Added  tag to http://www.forestsnow.org/endorsers/?filter=NGO+and+Research+Institutes
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/19990219220033/http://www.ucsusa.org/ to http://www.ucsusa.org/
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080415214143/http://www.climatechoices.org:80/ to http://www.climatechoices.org/
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110511115129/http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/ucs/cg-chapter-1.pdf to http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/ucs/cg-chapter-1.pdf
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) 19:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified