Talk:JASON (advisory group)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Much better researched than the Wikipedia article.

http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/organisations/JASON_Group.htm

http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/organisations/Jason_Group_members_list.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.134.206.154 (talkcontribs) 22:46, November 13, 2005

[From a viewer: Why don't you give us some sites that are in English?] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.25.58 (talk) 22:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


"NB: The Federation of American Scientists link, above, has reliable information. Otherise, much of what's on the internet about Jason, including the links below [abvoe], is a mix of fact, conjecture, and pure fantasy." (151.196.245.134)

Please go through those webpages and classify statements into fact and fantasy. GangofOne 07:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

book review[edit]

See page 21 of the Sunday, April 16, 2006 NYT Book Review "Rent-a-Genius" , where John Horgan provides missing information, e.g., Mildred Goldberger named JASON.204.210.35.48 14:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/16/books/review/16horgan.html reg. req. GangofOne 21:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

who were the three?[edit]

"DARPA's decision came after Jason's refusal to allow DARPA to select three new Jason members, two of whom were Silicon Valley execs without PhDs and thus "unqualified" by the standards of eminent academics." Who were these 3, and were 2 SV execs? Does Ann Finkbeiner know? GangofOne 23:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, she doesn't know. Nobody wanted to embarrass these guys by naming them. Apparently the "Silicon Valley exec" part is true, and apparently the third was an engineer whose credentials didn't rise to stellar. But I know that only from the Jasons, not from these people themselves. ~Ann Finkbeiner

JASON/Jason[edit]

Is it JASONs? Jasons?

The article switches taxonomy throughout.


Just about everybody uses JASONs, including the Jasons themselves. But the name is not an acronym, those letters stand for nothing. It's just the name, the Greek hero, Jason. So I personally don't capitalize. ~Ann Finkbeiner

Both seem to be used by sources even if arguably JASON is a bit silly. Does JASON/Jason have an official website or some such or any indication of their preference? In any case, I definitely think we need to standardise. The article is confusing as is switching between JASON and Jason. It sometimes sounds like it's talking about someone called Jason e.g. "In 2002, Democratic Congressman Rush Holt of New Jersey sent letters to key members of the House of Representatives to protest DARPA's decision to fire Jason." (this probably should be reworded whatever the case since I'm not quite sure what it means to fire JASON. This isn't mentioned elsewhere Nil Einne 13:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Article should revert to version of July 2[edit]

The recent series of vandalisms and fixes in this article have left it with both errors and unnecessary deletions. Can the article be reverted to the version of July 2? 151.196.116.140 15:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Ann Finkbeiner

In other words, I don't know how to revert the article to the last unvandalized version. Can a Wiki administrator help?

The Long Term Impact of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Climate (1979) JSR-78-07[edit]

This isn't on the FAS page listed. Can anyone provide a link to the text ? Rod57 (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope. But I found MacDonald '82, who says "Preliminary reports, which received limiated distribution, were issued in April 1979 (jsr-78-07) and in June 1980 (jsr-79-04). So I think The 79 report is "really" MacDonald 82 William M. Connolley (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
From the late '70's until the mid-80's, Jason did a number of climate reports, mostly on carbon dioxide's role in warming, on the effects of acid rain, and on computer models of climate. Then they quit working on climate for several years because they (and the climate scientists) felt they were re-inventing what climate scientists were already doing. The citation for JSR 78-07 is at <http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?query_id=2&page=0&osti_id=5829641> Someone with time and patience could look around the .gov and .mil sites for the full text. It was unclassified. AKath (talk) 17:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Ann Finkbeiner
And on second thought, I'll bet Dr. Connolley is right, that JSR 78-07 and JSR 79-04 are versions of the same thing, and that MacDonald published it (them) in '82. We'd have to get the actual reports to find out, wouldn't we. Oh, and yes, Dr. Connolley, that list of reports is just a selection. AKath (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Ann

Membership list is inappropriate[edit]

Public revelation of membership in a group like this is likely to subject people to politically-motivated attacks and harassment. Thus, it comes under WP:BLP -- unsourced information about living persons, particularly stuff likely to subject them to harassment or to invade their privacy, must be removed. Even if it can be sourced, I don't see that it's particularly tasteful or relevant, except where a person's membership makes the news for some reason. RayTalk 20:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with removal given lack of sourcing, but I disagree with most of the rest. These are mostly high profile individuals many (most? all?) of whom are notable in their own regard. Their notability helps contextualize the significance of JASON, and participation in JASON is an informative piece of their personal biographies. If the membership were well sourced I would support inclusion. Dragons flight (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I don't insist on it. I only boldly removed b/c it was unsourced. In general, I think that some physicists are major public figures, and their membership in JASON, if sourced, would be tasteful. However, others on the list are basically good scientists who keep a low profile. For those who are not public figures, we should have a higher degree of respect for their privacy. Maybe I've read too much about online harassment and blacklisting, but I don't like the idea of assembling lists of members of particular groups. While JASON's work is public, their membership is fairly low profile. RayTalk 20:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with removal of the membership list. It could not be reliably sourced because the membership is not public. Those Jasons who personally are public would make for a shortish and incomplete list; I suppose such an incomplete list would serve to illustrate Jason's significance, and would therefore be a compromise in this discussion. But the list as it stood was, to my knowledge, wrong and (without calling everybody up and asking) unverifiable. AKath (talk) 14:39, 2 April 2009

I completely disagree with removal of this list. This is a group whose sole support comes from government agencies. They are doing our work. We pay them. Furthermore, those who have been identified, have made public declarations of their status. Otherwise, no one would know. Ann's book, for example, is full of interviews done with complete understanding that the information would be made available, and numerous other Jasons were also interviewed by Finn Aaserud in the mid 1980s. When this information is available, it is wholly appropriate that it be made available here. Now I'll ask if the person who removed that list went through each of those links to check if the web pages on each of those people sourced the information that they were connected to Jason? I certainly know that when I added Henry Kendall, I went to his page and added a reference to Ann's book. I believe the list should be returned.DiagonalArg (talk) 05:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
The sourcing for the list would need to be with the list itself and not just on other wikipages. As I said above, I generally support having a list of members if it can be documented reliably. Dragons flight (talk) 05:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
So how to source the list then? obviously, people who talked to Finn Aaserud and to me and agreed to make their names public; people whose biographies or autobiographies say they're Jasons; people whose personal websites say they're Jasons. Then what happens when some IP address adds a name but not a source? I don't know enough about Wikipedia to know what to do then. AKath (talk) 16:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)AKath
We slap down and remove anything that can't be sourced. So if somebody adds a name, we do a quick search or two to see if we can confirm using reliable sources, and if we can't, we remove it right away. In the context of privacy, I'm going to suggest we should only list people who have made public revelations of their status -- not people whose names have been dug up from FOIA requests, etc. RayTalk 16:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Article may need updating[edit]

If (as I suspect) this is the group's current website; http://jasonscholars.com/ then they are (currently) known by another name (JasonScholars) and weren't established in 1960, but in 1953 as surmised by William Cooper here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahCtYD3w-xQ and confirmed by the above (their?) website. Anyways, seeing as I am n00b, I'm not comfortable updating the page myself, nor am I qualified to move it (if that needs to happen). Now I'll try signing my user name; Thomash —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomash (talkcontribs) 12:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The Jasons don't have a website. The group has attracted a number of conspiracy theorists, and at some point in the theory, Jason Scholars came into being. As far as I know, Jason Scholars is not real. AKath (talk) 14:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Ann

what does JASON stand for?[edit]

?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.202.138.67 (talk) 11:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


J....Ason JehovaH-son  :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.191.231.142 (talk) 18:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

New try for a membership list[edit]

I've started to compile a properly-sourced list, which you can see at User:Tillman/JASON founders, members, past and present. I think this will pass muster for WP:BLP concerns, but I thought I should present a draft before spending more time on it. Please have a look, and see what you think. Please feel free to tinker with the draft as well. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 05:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)