Talk:American Council on Science and Health

Taken from the main article

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 [1] 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) (small update: I emailed Jeff Stier to confirm that it is him, and he responded that it was.)

POV tag

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).

Which bit says it's a "front end for industry"? Bryan 02:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Tufts University accuracy scale

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)

New POV Tag

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)

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)

Tobacco policy

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)

Dramatic shift in the article violating neutrality

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:

• the Center for Science in the Public Interest analysis was removed
• the Daily Show coverage was removed
• Mother Jones coverage of their Medical Director being convicted of fraud was removed. Mother Jones provides more interesting background on the org as well

Meanwhile, the following was added:

• Dubiously relevant Better Business review was highlighted
• A misleading discussion of ACSH's view on smoking was added, which omitted the fact that ACSH does not think secondhand smoke is harmful (see, for example, Orac's analysis)

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)

Ya, I pretty much agree. Maybe you should bring the article back to my last version as a starting point, and then we can reinstate those changes that {{user|Kozitt} made that are OK. Yilloslime ^T_C 05:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I updated the article with as much information as I could find about the organization itself and shaped it so that it had sections, etc. because this talk page has indicated several times that the article didn't meet NPOV standards. I feel that there is now more encyclopedic information about the organization while properly maintaining a place for criticism. As to the specific points made above:

• The Daily Show coverage has its own section under media appearances and was never removed.
• CSPI and ACSH seem to have a problem with each other. As they both claim to be watchdogs and consumer advocacy groups, I don't think that either can be considered a reliable source about the other. Or, if you are going to quote CSPI on ACSH, shouldn't you then include ACSH's response to maintain NPOV?

Yes, sure sounds like one would include ACSH's response to maintain NPOV. However, the article lists a 1982 report, not the 2004 press release. A google book search showed some documentation of their problem. I added that they "spar" but I think that more context should be added from what I saw in available sources. -Shootbamboo (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Mother Jones is self-described as anti-corporate at which point I felt that, in relation to this topic, it fell under the category of "questionable sources" because it expresses an extremist point of view and relies heavily on opinion. Is there no other, more mainstream source reporting the same information? And if not, doesn't that say something?
  • Mother Jones is extremist? It's a mainstream news source - as mainstream as The Weekly Standard or The National Review. All three are available at large, well stocked book stores. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.233.103 (talk) 08:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Just because it's available doesn't mean it's neutral or reliable. The National Enquirer and Us Weekly are both widely available. Mother Jones has a self-declared bias. You cite the Weekly Standard and The National Review--two sources I would object to citing with regards to something like the state of the Democratic party. I don't think a source can be considered reliable when its own professed ideology is in direct conflict with the topic that it is covering--they're openly opinionated. Now, I have no objection to the information if a more mainstream (or less ideological, if you prefer) source can corroborate the information. That's a fair compromise, no?Kozitt (talk) 18:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Not fair. Mother Jones is biased but is still considered reliable. Look at the archives here: Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources. The only potential problem with something from MJ is if it was from a blog, which does not appear to be the case. Sounds like you're talking more about a WP:RS issue here, and if you want to raise a general concern about this WP guideline you should discuss it there. Also, I understand that you want the article to be neutral, we all do, but if only one biased source covers a subject, then in order to be neutral, we would reflect that bias in accordance with WP:NPOV. Otherwise add sources that balance out the issue. Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 21:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• I felt that the BBB review was relevant...not really sure why it wouldn't be.
• Happy to see the section on tobacco expanded--I just added what I could find through research, and the only thing I found on secondhand smoke was the Apple thing.

Very happy to discuss and work together to make the entry the best it can be.Kozitt (talk) 18:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the BBB review is largely (but maybe not completely) irrelevant. The ACSH advocates on science and health issues. From what I understand the BBB looks at the organizational/financial structure of the group. While I agree, theoretically, that the organizational/financial structure of the group would influence its advocacy on science and health issues, I don't think the BBB review illuminates this relationship. In short, I don't think the BBB would tell us much (or anything?) about the type of science and health advocacy that comes out of the ACSH—which is what I think this article attempts to shed light on. Furthermore, I don't understand how the BBB would be an arbiter of scientific accuracy. -Shootbamboo (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from. At the same time, I think there are multiple areas in which encyclopedic information should be offered in this article--both on ACSH's functioning as an organization and on its positions and scientific argumentation, just like one can discuss say Apple's products, but can also discuss things about the company like financial health, organization, media tactics, etc. I think there's a compromise--the BBB information doesn't need to be so long, but as the current version stands, all it says is that an assessment was done. If the fact of an assessment is relevant, then so too is the outcome, no? Kozitt (talk) 12:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It states the outcome of a "Wise Giving" status. I don't have a problem with a few more words, but I just don't see how more than a sentence is warranted. -Shootbamboo (talk) 21:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I added the outcome--the score--just because the BBB issues Wise Giving reports on charities who meet none of their criteria--it appears to be a scale, not a status. I totally see why much more than that a sentence could be considered undue weight. At the same time, I think the score begs the question of what standards they do and don't meet, which is why I wrote it as I originally had. What do you think? Is some detail necessary there? Maybe just a brief sentence on the standard they don't meet? I'm not sure--I'll wait for you guidance. Also, I'm going to break out the reliable sources discussion and would love your input... Kozitt (talk) 15:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

If a reader is interested in what 19/20 means for BBB they should go to a BBB website, or article, in my opinion. -Shootbamboo (talk) 01:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Reliability of Sources Resulting in POV issue

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)

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)

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)

Reliable facts about ACSH is found on Sourcewatch.www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=ACSH+&fulltext=Search