Talk:Sense about Science/Archive 1

Archive 1

Large-scale edits by SAS

We have made some large-scale edits because this article was inaccurate. Details of these edits and the reasons for them are below.

Deletion: ‘’"Some campaigning groups…. genetically-manipulated plants.”’’ This has been replaced with direct reference to Sense About Science’s funding policy.

Deletion: ‘’”The trust's director… MPs and Peers.“’’ This has been replaced with direct reference to Sense About Science’s staff biographies.

Deletion: ‘’== Controversy about links to 'Living Marxism' and the Revolutionary Communist Party==’’ This has been deleted as Sense About Science is not linked to the Revolutionary Communist Party or Living Marxism.

Deletion: ‘’Many of the prominent individuals…Spiked Magazine.” This has been deleted because it suggests that Sense About Science is linked to Living Marxism and Spiked magazines, which is not true. Ellen Raphael, programme manager at Sense About Science, has written articles for Spiked, as well as numerous other publications, on peer review and on chemicals and health. Both of these articles are available on the Spiked website.

Deletion: ‘’Sense About Science…Living Marxism’’ Sense About Science is not a ‘forceful proponent’ of GM crops or nuclear power. Nor do we have an ‘equivoval approach’ to climate change – our report Making Sense of the Weather and Climate clearly states that climate change is occurring and its acceleration can be attributed to human activity. The aim of Sense About Science is to ensure that public debates on scientific issues are informed by the best scientific evidence available and to act as a corrective when a debate becomes one-sided against the evidence, such as with MMR and autism. To achieve this we work with scientists through working groups to review the information available and put out information for the public. This means that we are not ‘pro’ or ‘anti’ any particular technology but want the public debate about the subject to accurately reflect the peer-reviewed scientific evidence.

Deletion: ‘’Living Marxism often expounded an anti-environmentalist agenda… been distorted.’’ This is not about Sense About Science and should be in a section about Living Marxism magazine and Martin Durkin.

Deletion: ‘’A similar controversy…'media watchdog'’’ Sense About Science had nothing to do with Martin Durkin’s programme the Great Global Warming Swindle. The Making Sense of Weather and Climate event and report were developed with a working group last year and released to coincide with the release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report and National Science and Engineering Week. To suggest that Sense About Science’s document and event was linked to, or reflected the views of, the Great Global Warming Swindle programme is untrue. The presentations from the event and the full report are available at www.senseaboutscience.org/weather.

Regarding the headline: ‘two leading climate researchers say some of their peers are ‘overplaying’ the global warming message’. What Professors Hardaker and Collier said, in an interview with BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, was that scientists should not be tempted to respond to misinformation by hyping up current weather developments as evidence of climate change. The programme raised the statement from AAAS and headlines were then extrapolated.

Deletion: Sense about Science have…on various committees of Sense about Science. Frank Furedi was not the intellectual inspiration of Sense About Science and has not been involved in the Trust’s work. Sense About Science’s activities are determined by monitoring public discussion; monitoring public calls to the Trust seeking help; the feedback from over 2000 supporters and the decision of its trustees.

Sense About Science 15:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Reinstated edits – reasons below. PLEASE DO NOT REVERT CHANGES WITHOUT DISCUSSION

The former version looks more like propaganda as it contains leading phrases such as ‘never directly received funding…’ All content should be factual statements with supporting reference(s). Sense About Science is a charity and their accounts are audited and publicly available. If there is a funding link it should be easy to establish this.

Same goes for the other reverts such 'the intellectual inspiration … is claimed to be' – who claims and in what reliable, published source? [1]

If Misodoctakleidist (or anyone else) disagrees with the new edits than they should discuss why on the Discussion page, as per good Wiki manners.

Apart from anything else, this was a lazy revert since it occured within 30 mins – hardly time enough to establish that every amendment was 'POV propaganda'. If anything, such an indiscriminating action speaks more about the revertor's (is that a word?!) POV. Clearly some (non-controversial) information must have been more accurate – ie the number change of 1,000 to 2,000 scientists on EvidenceBase; this is something that a SenceAboutScience rep is more qualified to state then a non-employee! MedicalScientist 10:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a substantial body of evidence pointing out links with various Spiked/IoI/LM organisations. Given that in the past the RCP was notable for its practice of "entryism" it is entirely fair and reasonable that supporting evidence and allegations be included on this article. I do agree that the original article was unbalanced but wholescale revisionism is just not acceptable. If Sense about Science want to counter the allegations (which have been made in print numerous times and thus can be cited) then they need to issue a official statement addressing them. Otherwise it looks like censorship. --GeraldGerald 12:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

There is not a 'substantial body of evidence pointing out links...' There are various 'X watch' pages that repeat the same information, which itself is based on an article published by George Monbiot. Repetition of an allegation or innuendo is not evidence. Links to Sense About Science's publications are more valuable as people can then read what we actually have done rather than relying on secondary sources who clearly haven't looked at our work.

Sense About Science does reject the innuendo in the account given, which is why we have openly changed the page. The edits and reasoning listed on both this page and on the main entry are, as they are clearly signed by Sense About Science, an 'official statement'. If something purports to be about Sense About Science it is misleading for this information to remain. This is meant to be an encyclopaedia not a rumour mill. Sense About Science 12:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Self editing is strongly discouraged in Wikipedia.

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest Allegations made by Monbiot have never been officially challenged by any of the individuals nor organisations concerned. Therefore in the interests of balance they must remain. If these allegations are untrue then by all means refute them in a manner which can be cited in Wikipedia (letter to newspaper, official statement on website, etc). This discussion page is not an appropriate forum for rebutting allegations. Furthermore the article does not rely on innuendo. It relies on cited articles which themselves are properly referenced and provide supporting evidence substantiating the allegations.

Found a study that settles the dispute

Newspapers are not reliable, credible sources, unless it's for quotes. Aubrey de Grey has had several newspaper articles written about him and his crackpot theory, but no matter how many times they're repeated, the man still hasn't published any scientific studies (peer-reviewed or otherwise), can't cure dying and ain't even close. This goes for conspiracy theories, eg Princess Diana, JFK, Roswell etc, whether they are published in newspapers or on a website. Until there is solid evidence (such as an in-depth investigation, independent study, double-blind randomised trial), such things remain speculation.

The articles by George Monbiot have circular referencing, not solid evidence. Who knows, maybe these suggestions not been refuted because they're so laughable (à la Aubrey). Regardless, what we need is an in-depth study. Happily, as a science-geek, I am signed up to an email list called psci-com. Bizarrely, this very subject cropped up on there (around the time of the weather thingamajiggies) and provoked some heated discussion.

The similar 'yes it is' 'no it isn't' argument was silenced by this post:

Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 08:53:03 +0100

Reply-To: "psci-com: on public engagement with science"
Sender: "psci-com: on public engagement with science"
From: Zoe Corbyn
Subject: Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

Hi. I just wanted to say that I did my Science Communication MSc thesis looking at the Science Media Centre and Sense About Science and their Living Marxism connections.

It was in two parts. The first looked at the personal and organizational links George Monbiot used to assert that the LM had infiltrated SAS and the SMC. The second part put these to one side and looked for ideological links with LM's view of science through an analysis of the discourses of the organisations. It includes interviews with George Monbiot and his researcher, Fiona Fox, Tracey Brown and Dick Taverne; examination of SAS/SMC texts and a stab at a quantitative analysis of SMC press releases looking at their areas of focus and the voices they use to speak for science.

It did identify some compatibility in ideological positions, but concluded that against a backdrop of such a scientised society, singling out the SAS and the SMC and claiming a unique link with the ideological positions of LM is too great a connection to make - personal and organisational links on their own are of limited consequence.

Anyway, it is called "A critical analysis of the case for the LM network's 'entryism' of Sense About Science and the Science Media Centre", was published in September 2005, is in the Imperial College library. If anyone is interested, I would be happy to send then a copy.

Zoe

[2]

So, we have an entire thesis on this exact question, complete with interviews with the main protagonists and first hand access to source material, and the answer is that there are no significant links between LM and Sense About Science. Basically, in a secular, highly technological society it is unsurprising that pro-Science organisations may have similar outlooks on certain things; conducting a smear campaign and peddling conspiracy theories just because your position has no real backup seems a bit unsporting.

I have therefore edited the article to remove the speculative, unsubstantiated claims (and links to them), and would request that before anyone else goes ahead with en masse reversions, that they discuss here. I realise that I'm putting myself forward a bit, but it is in the spirit of an interested, but independent, party :) I can't promise to respond to the points instantly (how do people make changes within half an hour – don't they have a job and/or a life?!) but will be back, so please have a bit of patience. It's only a suggestion of course, but it seems stupid to have the page flipping back and forth (and lazy reversions too – even putting back in spelling mistakes!), especially as I've found a reliable and credible source to settle the argument.

The Ch4 film was an independent event to Sense About Science's seminar, so I've taken that out. The link to the Inde on Sunday piece is broken, and I can't find it either with Google, or on the Inde site so I've removed that as well.

Correction of spelling mistakes and the stuff such as topics that Sense About Science has covered aren't controversial, so I'm not sure why they kept being taken out/ reverted.

I've also removed the stuff about the staff biogs, Trusts accounts, & donations policy as (i) no other charities have this on their Wiki entries, (ii) as a UK charity of course the Trust's accounts are public, and (iii) in light of the squashed accusations they seems unnecessary and pointless. However, if anyone does feel that they add something, go ahead and put them back in.

It's a pretty minimal piece now, but I've had a look at various Wiki charity entries (Cancer Research UK, Battersea Dogs Home, Alzheimer's Society), and they're all brief, and I don't think there's any point adding more just for the sake of it.

Ta ta for now! MedicalScientist 16:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

One Msc thesis does not count as a rebuttal. The author of the thesis is a student journalist and is certainly not a heavyweight as Monbiot is (regardless of how accurate you regard him he does have a considerable reputation). If you could find a online copy of the thesis I would be interested in seeing it as an admittedly interested party. But to deal with your criticism.....

Firstly the bits I am in broad agreement with. The ch4 doc is unnecessary in the context of this article. The broken links can be fixed. I am in two minds about the funding as it is open to scrutiny but I think it is relevant in the context of the allegations.

The bits I don't. If you check the facts in the Monbiot and lobbywatch/sourcewatch articles they all check out. The accusations regarding who registered the domain are true. In fact the individual concerned has involvement in many other alleged front organisations but as these are not mentioned in articles yet do not deserve mention in wikipedia (no original research and all that). The close association with individuals from IoI/Spiked checks out. Practically every event by Sense about Science features at least 2-3 such individuals (with limited/no scientific background) speaking with no connection between these individuals made apparent. The RCP strategy of entryism has long been documented and the sneaky way these individuals are presented doesn't look good considering that reputation. The staff biogs are relevant in the context of allegations but could be removed if you consider the article too long. If the original Monbiot (and Nick Cohen) articles were wrong in the substance of the allegations is it really too much to ask for a rebuttal at the time........even if just a letter to a newspaper? I notice that Sense About Science still haven't categorically denied that it was set up by IoI/Spiked sympathisers to influence the public debate on science which is the substance of the accusation.

Anyway, in conclusion: The accusations should be mentioned as they are based on evidence which checks out and no rebuttal of the accusations has ever been made.

Do you have any association with Sense About Science? I don't but nor do I have any association with Monbiot or lobbywatch/gmwatch. In fact personally I am generally pro-GM and pro-nuclear so I don't have an axe to grind regarding the technology. I am an ex-RCP associate and do have some knowledge of the entryist strategy following the collapse of LM. I don't think there is a sinister conspiracy but there is a definite covert attempt to influence the public presentation of science (and other issues). On this Monbiot is right.

Anyway I'll leave the article alone till tomorrow and await your comments with interest --GeraldGerald 17:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the points. Unfortunately I can't get to them right away as I have a work seminar all afternoon/early evening (I'm actually taking advantage of an early lunch break, so don't have time to do more than scan them right now), but I will try and answer it in tomorrow's lunchbreak. I'd like to give your points proper consideration rather than a rush job, so please bear with me.

One thing I can say without any need for consideration is 'no, I'm not associated with Sense About Science' (or GM Watch), although I was impressed with their work on homeopathy that got picked up by Newsnight. As a small charity, I don't think that they've got a 'smoothing the way' fund – although I'm open to offers ;) MedicalScientist 11:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. I won't do anything till you respond properly. Have you seen the MSc thesis. I'd really like to read it. In a non judgemental private capacity of course. I don't think it can be used here but I would genuinely like to read the interviews with all concerned (and to check their statements against what I can prove to be true).--GeraldGerald 13:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

GG, I think you've proved there's no association – if RCP/LM aficionados are trying to 'covertly' influence public opinion then Sense About Science's openly declared aims aren't nearly covert enough! They quite openly say that they want to influence debate by making it more evidence-based :) But seriously…

This is not a 'student journalist' (overtones of a first year tutorial project), this is a postgraduate piece of original research – an MSc thesis is not a lightweight bit of fluff. Why do you think it can’t be used? Would you discount an Engineering MSc thesis that addressed a particular structural problem? Similarly, the Imperial College Science Communication MSc is not a 'journalism course’ – it's a postgraduate degree specifically aimed at accurately communicating the complexities of science to the layperson. Aspects certainly cover TV/radio, but also documentary film, museum exhibitions, multimedia, the history of science communication, science policy, scientific controversies etc

You’re right in a particular respect: this thesis is not a ‘rebuttal’ ie a statement of denial to the claims made by an involved party; it is an investigation of them (making it exceptionally pertinent in this context) by an independent person – and is more powerful for that independence.

“The close association with individuals from IoI/Spiked checks out.” – the thesis specifically investigated this and said that personal and organisational links on their own are of limited consequence. Merely the fact that these people know each other doesn’t make them hand-in-glove conspirators, and in fact the opposite was concluded (ie that there was no basis for conspiracy claims).

I agree that if there was a basis for including the allegations, then the staff biogs would be relevant… but I still don’t think there is enough evidence to support these allegations, meaning that there’s no need for them now.

I don't have a copy of the thesis – going on Zoe Corbyn's email, it's in the Imperial College library so is open access. She does say at the end of her email that she's willing to send a copy to anyone that requests it, so if you sign up for psci-com you'd be able to message her.

Re the Inde link – it wasn't 'broken', there's literally no sign of the article anywhere. The Inde does have a habit of quietly 'disappearing' articles from the online archive that have mistakes (which is quite sensible I suppose – you shouldn't keep displaying information which you know to be erroneous), and that seems to be the case here. I've tried Googling every relevant combination of search terms I can think of; searching the Inde with same search terms; and manually checking their archives – nada on all fronts. If you find a copy then please share the link as I'm quite curious to read it.

You said that "practically every event by Sense about Science features at least 2-3 such individuals (with limited/no scientific background) speaking with no connection between these individuals made apparent" – can you specify which events? I've had a look on their website at the advertised speakers for a few of their events/lectures, and they were all experienced scientists, mathematicians and researchers with experience in their field.

Cheers MedicalScientist 11:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I said "student journalist" because I googled the authors name and that is what she was at the time the MSc was completed. I'm not being snooty about a thesis. I've written a couple myself and know what it takes. But I think it can't be used because I've not read it (and nor have you) and it is not available to the public. I had a look on thesis abstract databases and I cannot find it so we cannot link to it on Wikipedia as we do not have the details. The Monbiot article is in the public domain and can be used. While this exposes flaws in wikipedia it does mean that we cannot consider it in the article (yet). I'll look into the Indy article as it was online (to be honest there are similar articles in other places that are still online). If the climate stuff is not included then there is no need for it anyway. You asked for evidence about speakers at events/lectures. I will happily give it to you (or provide links to places it has been discussed) but wikipedia isn't the place for original research. If you have an email address I can contact you on I will be happy to do so. This is peripheral to the article though. Monbiot makes certain allegations. They have not been refuted. Therefore I think they should be included. The basic fact underlying Monbiot's arguments checks out and is properly referenced so there is no reason to exclude it on grounds of factual accuracy. You may think it is wrong, sense about science may think it is wrong but until a counter argument is available to reference on wikipedia the article should remain. --GeraldGerald 13:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

GeraldGerald, re your comment: “Practically every event by Sense About Science features at least 2-3 such individuals…with no connection between these individuals made apparent.” Sense About Science has only organised two public events, the first on public good plant breeding in conjunction with the Natural History Museum in 2003. The speakers at this were: Professor MS Swaminathan FRS (who developed dwarf rice varieties for India and won the world food prize), Professor Peter Raven FRS (head of the Missouri Botanical Garden and world-leading environmental scientist) and Professor Phil Dale (Leader of Genetic Modification and Biosafety Research at John Innes). The details of this event and information about the presentations are on our website. The second was a ‘Making Sense of the Weather and Climate’ symposium at St John’s College Oxford in 2007. All speakers were from the Met Office, the Royal Meteorological Society, the Hadley Centre and ECMWP, except Bill Burroughs, who is author of 11 books on climate and weather. The full programme has been available on our website since before the event, and the speakers’ presentations are available there too: www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/126/.

Sense About Science has been involved with three events for a parliamentary audience. These were: on the future of medical scanning, with presentations from three leading members of the Royal College of Radiologists including their president; on sugar beet research by three heads of department at the BBSRC Brooms Barn Research Station; and a talk given by Professor Gordon Conway (now DfID chief scientist).

We have two kinds of invitation events. The first is our annual lecture. 2006 was given by Professor Sir John Krebs; 2007 by Professor Ray Tallis. Both are on our website, together with full scientific credentials of both speakers. The second is our informal workshops with early career scientists, established scientists and the media. These are practical sessions about responsibility for good science. Write-ups, programmes and speaker biogs are on our website. You can read the content of them and the contributors in their own words in the Standing Up for Science leaflet that some attendees produced, also on our website.

Re: “I notice that Sense About Science still haven't categorically denied that it was set up by IoI/Spiked sympathisers to influence the public debate on science which is the substance of the accusation” Lord Taverne explains clearly in his book The March of Unreason (and has repeated in many interviews and explained in parliamentary speeches – available web and Hansard) why he set up Sense About Science. Our website explains in an article also published in HealthWatch, and repeated in many similar articles about us in science magazines and more general publications, how that came about at the end of 2001 through discussions with Professor Dame Bridget Ogilvie, Mark Matfield, Baroness Greenfield and others concerned with science and the public (many of whom are now on our board or went on to launch initiatives of their own to respond to the concerns of that time). The role of the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee report on Science and Society 2000 in prompting these discussions and initiatives was quite well understood at that time but has probably been forgotten a bit now.

With all of this information stated on our website and repeated in all kinds of press articles, speeches, leaflets and publications, it seems that insistence on various alternative conspiratorial theories is intentionally malicious or impervious. It has never been considered a good use of our very overstretched time to respond. Every group that is offended, for example, by what scientists say on mobile phones, on vaccines, on homeopathy, has their version of a conspiracy theory. It would be a serious neglect of our aims and activities to respond continually, although letters have been sent at various times by us and by scientists who work with us. Our Board concluded this at an early stage.

If you are referring to the personal background of our director, who was recruited by Lord Taverne and began work in 2002, then perhaps you should take up directly with her your concerns about whether she is ‘sneaky’ in this employment, objections to views she may have and anyone she may associate personally with.

Specifically, those links you relate to Sense About Science are more straightforward than you imply. Yes, the domain name was registered by someone who is also the Spiked webmaster. Before there were staff in place, the director was asked by the Board to set up a website, despite having no experience of it and almost no budget. She contacted the webmasters of several sites for help. The person you refer to runs his own company, offered the most affordable rate to write the code for the site and still does occasional work if it goes wrong.

The aims of Sense About Science were set out by the original group of trustees. These were: Dick Taverne, Bridget Ogilvie, Mark Matfield, Shereen El Feki, Peter Marsh, Janet Bainbridge, Chris Leaver, John Maddox and Christie Peacock. (They were later joined on the board by Brian Heap, Onora O’Neill, Mike Fitzpatrick, Diana Garnham and, more recently, by Simon Singh.) It is true that these aims set us out to influence the public debate on science – to ensure that public debates on scientific issues are informed by the best scientific evidence available and to act as a corrective when a debate becomes one-sided against the evidence, such as with MMR and autism. Our activities are reviewed and longer term plans are agreed through quarterly board meetings and our efforts in trying to achieve our aims have been rewarded with around 2,600 scientists signing up on our database. We think that our activities reflect our aims pretty straightforwardly.

Working in a busy, understaffed office where the phone often rings off the hook and we never get on top of all the things we’re asked to help with, constantly having new challenges with no obvious answers and having to innovate, seek help and collaborate accordingly... we do find it strange that you imagine that this is all part of some grand plan!

Finally, you say that you are personally “generally pro-GM and pro-nuclear”, but just to clarify Sense About Science’s position, we are not ‘pro’ or ‘anti’ any particular technology but want the public debate about the subject to reflect accurately the scientific evidence. Sense About Science 20:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

'Self editing is strongly discouraged on Wiki'.

'Sense about Science ' do not seem to have understood this - and the large scale deletions on their part, including any reference to any criticism of them - even when referenced - is unacceptable.

'Sense about Science' does not take a neutral stance on Science, and it if they want to be part of an open society, it is important that this position is open to question.

Simply editing out any reference to critical articles in this Wiki rather lends support to the accusations that have something to hide.

Deletions re-instated.

Dean Morrison 13:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion: ‘’"Critics have accused Sense About Science of giving a partial view of science, for example taking the side of industry in the debate on GM crops. They have accused Lord Taverne, a former lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry of setting up Sense about Science for this purpose.”’’ Who has made these criticisms? Deleted because no reference provided.

Modification: ‘’"and the Sense about Science have admitted that their website was created by the Spiked Online webmaster"‘’ changed to: ‘’"and the Sense About Science website was created by the Spiked Online webmaster"‘’ Sense About Science have never denied that Rob Lyons registered the website, the use of 'admitted' is unnecessary.

Sense About Science 15:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Sense About Science

"BRD is not a justification for imposing one's own view, or tendentious editing without consensus". Criticism has been repeatedly been removed by those connected with Sense About Science. My current addition is brief, and links to a notable and verifiable source. Removal of this would, I suggest, constitute censorship and POV editing in favour of Sense About Science. Fences and windows (talk) 19:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:AGF. For the record, I have no connection with Sense about science. Your current addition gives far to much weight to the opinion of one person. Do you have so;e references that show this is a notable criticism? A cry of censorship in the opening of a BRD discussion is not a good start. Please be civil and justify your edits, don't attack other editors. Verbal chat 22:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I should remember to AGF, but my response to your edit was in the context of the edits that user Sense About Science has made to this page. Apologies.

George Monbiot is a prominent environmentalist, and he was writing in the Guardian, one of the most well-known broadsheet newspapers in the UK. His linking of SAS with the LM group was referred to in the Times Education Supplement here http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=193769&sectioncode=26. Zac Goldsmith also wrote about this in the Ecologist (also appeared in Mail on Sunday) http://www.zacgoldsmith.com/article.asp?contentID=3&newsID=48 ("When SAS puts itself forward as a fact-checking service, we can only hope its offer is rejected. For whichever way you look at it, SAS appears no more independent than an infant, no more objective than an animal rights fanatic – and, far from injecting sense into science, it is more likely to undermine what little remains of the public’s faith in it"). Criticism of SAS by environmentalists and mention of the connection to LM has appeared in reliable sources, and it is notable. Fences and windows (talk) 20:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I like the edits by Eldereft to add the reception section. I think that adding in mention of Monbiot and Goldsmith's criticisms is fair, as they are notable critics and removal of the mention of the link to Living Marxism seems like censorship to me. We should mention it, but in a way that leaves it up to the reader to decide as per NPOV. Fences and windows (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you :)

I am certainly not averse to expanding the critical portion of the Reception section (I kinda abhor Criticism sections, for the most part - having one tends to whitewash the rest of the article), but we need sourcing on par with what we already have. I am pretty sure I remember reading about some homeopaths criticizing SAS; pro-GM and pro-nuclear power are both stances that tend to attract impassioned commentary; I did not happen to run across any of these when sniffing out sources the other day, though. The LM/RCP link has received extremely little press, and frankly the THE article you link makes it out to be something of a conspiracy theory. This Guardian article mentions SAS and LM in separate sections (at least, they do not make any explicit connection). It is also not labeled comment, which I think indicates that the Monbiot piece is in the way of being an OpEd.

Go ahead and propose wording and placement, though - preferably drawing most heavily on THE. - Eldereft (cont.) 03:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Reception

Suggested addition: "Environmentalists such as George Monbiot and Zac Goldsmith have commented on the connections Tracey Brown, Ellen Raphael and others working with Sense About Science have with the former RCP and LM magazine, noting that "most of the people who have taken these posts do not have a background in science". Claire Fox of the Institute of Ideas responded to these claims, saying "What they are saying is that if you have had any connection with the RCP and you have since got on with your life, then whoever you work for now is a front organisation for the RCP, which doesn't even exist. Certainly, there is a network of like-minded people. Some people do come from an RCP background, because we have a long intellectual history together, and we do work together sometimes, but it is just wrong to imagine that there is some revolutionary cell.""

More below on various topics, some of which should be included in the article.

More on connections to LM: The Faction That Fools The World, Variant Embrace democracy, not the People’s Front, Science and Public Affairs. Btw, here's a piece Tracey Brown ("a sociologist working in Russian social research") wrote for LM: [3].

Climate change: SAS organised a meeting on climate change in 2007. It prompted prominent news coverage along these lines: Don't exaggerate climate dangers, scientists warn. The Observer. See a blog about it and a critical Medialens report.

A letter to THES says, "[Vivian]Moses is also part of the Scientific Alliance, as are several of Sense About Science’s scientific advisers, not to mention one or two of the other contributors to the GM booklet. The Scientific Alliance is an industry-funded lobby group that openly promotes climate change denial – a topic on which Sense About Science has done almost nothing proactive to challenge the sceptics." n.b. The director of the climate change denial documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, Martin Durkin, is also connected to RCP/LM [4], and Spiked, the successor to LM [5], is also skeptical on climate change [6].

More on GM: A comment to that THES letter adds that "The current issue of Private Eye (20 March - 2 April, Books and Bookman section) says that a draft version of Sense About Science's GM guide which they've seen, acknowledges the contribution of Monsanto's former director of scientific affairs". I will find a copy. Found it: "Tracey Brown of Sense About Science, publisher of the guide, condemned the T.H.E. article as "mischievous" and "rude" and claimed it relied on "tortuously indirect links" between the authors and the GM industry. But the Eye has a copy of an unpublished draft of the guide - and it seems it wasn't just the industry links of some of its authors that didn't appear in the final published version. One of the guide's listed authors, Andrew Cockburn, is also missing. Who he? None other than GM giant, Monsanto's former director of scientific affairs, and a figure so controversial that when former PM Tony Blair invited him to author part of the government's official GM Science Review, it led to questions being raised in the House and the resignation of one of the expert panellists." Private Eye (1232, 20 March - 2 April 2009, Books and Bookmen, p.26) There's also a Nature blog about the THES report and the SAS response.

Plastic bags: Dick Taverne, using his affiliation to SAS, is saying that plastic bags aren't bad for marine life [7], contradicting previous reports, e.g [8][9]. Spiked, coincidentally (?) enough, has been defending plastic bags for a long time, e.g. [10] [11]

Homeopathy: A homeopath, Peter Fisher, criticised SAS as shills for the pharmaceutical industry in 2007. The Channel 4 report is here, doesn't work for me though. Responses from Tracey Brown are: here and here Fences and windows (talk) 21:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Edits

I've added some of this info, and other news stories covering their releases. Also general editing to improve flow, wikilinks, etc. I spotted that the ref supporting praise by Ben Goldacre didn't actually support it, so I removed it. Now, I know he's referred to their work, but outright praise I had trouble finding. I can find a quote where he says "possibly-ex-LM/RCP-infiltrated-but-not-so-bad-with-it-shh-don’t-tell-anyone-or-they-get-really-angry rationality campaigners Sense About Science (who we love)", but that's a bit too double-edged to be a fair reference. David Colquhoun is another for whom praise could be sourced. Fences and windows (talk) 03:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:SOAP

We must be careful when linking to any source - reliable or not - that has the purpose of political recruitment. That said, I think this edit is a fair compromise (relegating the link to just a reference link). However, if anyone thinks that this still causes a WP:SOAP violation, I am open to reading your position. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, soap is used to make things clean, and this is based on such an attempt, otherwise known as whitewashing. The application of the SOAP policy is within bounds as far as wikipolicies go, but the motivation stinks. It's just plain wikilawyering in the service of chiropractic, not in the service of openness. It parallels the BCA vs Singh situation. If it weren't about chiropractic, you wouldn't have noticed. Sure you're for openness and against censorship, but not when it comes to chiropractic criticisms. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

re NPOV / POV

I recently tried to clean up the lede here. I am not sure what is POV about adding information about when they were established as a charitable trust. Nor do I see why there is the abundance of peacockery in the lede. They are referred to quite frequently as a pressure group, they are a charity in the legal sense of the word.

Pressure group:

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=189599&sectioncode=26

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3554422.stm

campaigning organisation /group:

http://www.thenational.ae/article/20090105/FRONTIERS/230640617/1036

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=180193&sectioncode=26

lobbying group:

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=199491&sectioncode=26

They are an advocacy group with the stated mission of "promoting good science and evidence for the public". There is nothing POV about stating that, while there are some POV issues with using charity in a misleading sense. As for this change, they are not a 'science' charity, they don't fund research. Unomi (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

They are a charity. They fund the public understanding of science. They offer service to other charities, journalists, celebrities and organisations. Like all charities, they lobby and campaign in support of their goals and ideals. Verbal chat 20:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

So it sounds like we agree? They are a charitable trust advocating a position they hold to be in the common good? Unomi (talk) 20:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we agree. Assuming good faith, your edits will, eventually and once edited by others, improve the article. Verbal chat 21:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

<- Hey, sorry about the funding, I was just about to move it down when I noticed that you had moved it, not sure why it didn't show an ec that time around. I think it makes sense to describe their activities and publications with a bit more detail where warranted rather than having it all in some weird 'reception' section. What do you think? Unomi (talk) 23:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

So. How do you feel that this structure is problematic? I am fine with placing the funding section somewhere else, I'll even go with including science in their info box, but why not flesh out their publications and have the relevant information attached to it? Unomi (talk) 01:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Btw early versions of this page paint a very different picture of the organization. This current version needs quite a bit of work. I am unwilling to play revert/stall/drama games, are we going to forge this into a solid article or what? Unomi (talk) 01:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it is quite a good article. It gives a fairly NPOV and well-sourced summary. The early versions were characterised by almost cutting and pasting from Sourcewatch, followed by removal by SAS themselves. The criticism and links to LM group is included, as I added it back in, but only using reliable sources, without pushing a POV, and giving due weight. What changes do you think are needed to improve the article? Fences&Windows 03:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe a structure like this would give room to the article. that would allow us to give more depth to the activities they have partaken in. I also feel that the lede reads like an advertisement and needs to be revised for neutrality. Unomi (talk) 07:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Unomi's proposed structure looks strong, IMO, and I greatly agree with his/her assessment about the current lead. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

claiming, proclaiming vs stating.

how about this as a compromise? : Anti-genetic modification campaigners and academics have criticised Sense About Science for failing to disclose industry connections of some advisers,

That works too. Here was my attempt to resolve it with rewording. That said, I think I like what you are suggesting here better. It's more concise and even less weaselly. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the current wording is 'off' but I will accept it in the spirit of compromise. Just so we understand each others' positions though:

Anti-genetic modification campaigners and academics have criticised Sense About Science for what they view as failing to disclose industry connections of some advisers, It wasn't just 'their view': "Had I been asked by SAS how I should be described (I wasn't asked and presumed it knew as I have been one of its advisers for years), I would have suggested: visiting professor of biotechnology, King's College London, and chairman of CropGen." -Vivian Moses

Lede needs a rewrite

The lede as it stands is overly promotional. Here is a proposed alternative:

Sense About Science is a campaigning organization in the United Kingdom, its mission statement is "promoting good science and evidence for the public". SAS was conceived in 2002 by Lord Taverne, Bridget Ogilvie and others, it was established as a charitable trust in August, 2003. Since shortly after being established and as of 2009, the managing director is Tracey Brown.

Sense About Science works with scientists, public intermediaries and undertakes activities to ensure that scientific evidence is at the forefront of public discussions and to correct misinformation. They encourage and assist scientists to engage in public debates, to respond to scientifically inaccurate claims in the media, to help people contact scientists with appropriate expertise, and to prepare briefings about the scientific background to issues of public concern.

Reports and campaign statements released by Sense About Science have generated significant press coverage, some criticizing failures in disclosing industry ties.

Unomi (talk) 05:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with the current lead. Although you seem to really want to link to advocacy for some reason. Have you seen WP:SOAP? Also, it's called a "lead". Verbal chat 05:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Unomi, have you read the guidelines for writing a LEAD? We don't just completely rewrite leads. They get tweaked according to changes in article content. If you have discovered something in the article that isn't being mentioned in the lead, then propose THAT change and provide your reasons. Here is the short version of my own guidelines to ensure that a lead does its job: Any subject in the article that has its own section heading deserves mention in the lead. Short and simple sections may only deserve passing mention. Large and complicated sections may deserve many sentences or a whole paragraph in the lead. How it gets mentioned is a matter for discussion and creating a consensus version.

Now what is there in the lead you're not satisfied with? -- Brangifer (talk) 05:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It is full of peacock words which are not supported by sources or article content. Aims to ? area of expertise? Please see for example that the experts on climate change that they used to write the pamphlet criticizing AAAS later stated that they were in fact not experts on climate change. I will say though that recent changes to the lede have brought some improvement. What is small office staff there for? Unomi (talk) 06:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

A bit of a clean up

Why thank you for your respectful, careful, and considerate reversion of all of my edits Verbal. I shall go through and justify each one seeing as the edit summaries were obviously not sufficiently explanatory. I'm sure you'll return the favour next time I ask you to justify one of your edits ;-)

The Trust maintains EvidenceBase, a database of over 2,000 UK scientists willing to contribute their knowledge to inform public debate

They can't contribute their knowledge, they can only use their knowledge to help their contribution. Hence:

The Trust maintains EvidenceBase, a database of over 2,000 UK scientists willing to contribute to public debate.

SAS encourages scientists to explain to the public the value of peer review in determining which reports should be taken seriously. Director Tracey Brown describes such critical thinking as crucial to preventing public health scares based on unpublished information.

Are these two separate points or supposed to be linked? Is naming Tracey Brown strictly relevant/necessary to make the point? I suggest drop Tracey and combine:

SAS encourages scientists to explain to the public the value of peer review in determining which reports should be taken seriously in order to help promote critical thinking and prevent public

The Trust actively campaigns in support of various causes. It has issued a statement signed by over 35 scientists asking the WHO to condemn homeopathy for diseases such as HIV

Campaigning is being active - this is a tautology. A signed statement lobbying for something is called a petition. And lets remove any ambiguity whether they blame homeopathy for causing HIV or as a treatement for HIV

The Trust campaigns in support of various causes. It has issued a petition by over 35 scientists asking the WHO to condemn homeopathy as a treatment for diseases such as HIV.

They have issued a statement entitled "The law has no place in scientific disputes", which has been signed by many people representing science, medicine, journalism, publishing, arts, humanities, entertainment, skeptics, campaign groups and law. As of 27 July 2009, over 15,000 have signed. Many press sources have covered the issue.

Another petition, let's call it what it is. There can't be 15,000 personalities, and describing all of the possible realms of endeavour from which they hail is quite redundant - let's just call them people. Also the 'many press sources' bit sounds quite feeble. How many is many? Just attach the citations.

As part of this campaign SAS have issued another "The law has no place in scientific disputes" petition, signed by over 15,000 people.

decrying the unsubstantiated claims of homeopathy, supporting genetically modified crops, criticising 'do-it-yourself' health testing, denouncing detox products, warning against 'miracle cures', and promoting public understanding of peer review."

Some of this language is quite unencyclopaedic, and in fact a long repeat of information already in the article. I suggest either cropping the whole thing, or just listing them in single sentence without the padding, as well as separating the 'fors' from the 'againsts'.

criticising a variety of other areas including homeopathy, do-it-yourself' health testing, detox products, and 'miracle cures'. They have also supported genetically modified crops and sought to educate the public about peer review.

This coverage was criticised by Media Lens.

This sentence just appears without any further explanation. Some indication of the criticism is surely relevant.

This coverage was criticised by Media Lens claiming Sense About Science is influenced by climate change deniers.

They have received positive coverage in publications from the Royal Society and the U.S. National Science Foundation, as well as in the personal writings of prominent scientists such as Ben Goldacre and Steven Novella.<

Let's maintain NPOV and avoid puffery.

They have been mentioned in publications from the Royal Society as well as the U.S. National Science Foundation and in the personal writings of Ben Goldacre and Steven Novella.

That wasn't so terrible, now was it? Lots of improvements. Cheers, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blippy (talk • contribs)

I dispute that any of these actually improve the article, instead they are trying to minimise the impact of SaS as understood by the RS in the article. The first "correction" is just wrong; of course people can contribute their knowledge. The removal of "positive" from coverage, while maintaining criticism is clear POV. Both should be labelled appropriately. This is the opposite of the stance Blippy is taking on another article, but similar tactics. Verbal chat 11:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Starting with the ad hominem straight out of the blocks Verbal? A trifle early for that surely? Anyway, the first one addresses a tortured sentence. "willing to contribute their knowledge to inform public debate" is ugly, "willing to contribute to public debate" is simpler. A signature isn't knowledge BTW if signing a petition is an example of "contributing knowledge". I am more than happy for "positive coverage" to remain instead of just "coverage" - just provide the independent RS that describes it in that way, otherwise it looks like POV pushing, don't you think? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 11:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Try to justify your edits please Blippy. My first comment was that these don't improve the article. Your positive coverage argument is pathetic. Verbal chat 11:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm did you have a squiz at all that stuff up there that I typed? That's a justified set of edits. Now have a look at what you typed: "I dispute that any of these actually improve the article" and "these don't improve the article". That's called stating your o p i n i o n. Now, one more from you; "Try to justify your edits please". Could I suggest you take a little of your own advice here? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

And of course it is fairly standard English to say "contribute ones knowledge". It is my opinion your edits are not improving, your's is different. I have given justification for at least two, whereas you have described your edits and not answered my counterpoints. Verbal chat 12:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you mean "share ones' knowledge". In any case the simpler sentence is cleaner and avoids the tangle. I have justified all of my edits. Your turn. Blippy (talk) 13:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I meant what I said. I don't see any policy or RS justifications for your changes that haven't already been shown to be spurious. Verbal chat 13:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you'd made a simple mix up. If you meant what you said then I'm afraid you're just plain wrong. "contribute ones|one's|ones' knowledge" 26 hits ; "share ones|one's|ones' knowledge" ~45,000 hits Cheers, Blippy (talk) 11:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

← Regarding the partial revert:

1. There is an entire section treating the reception of SAS - this needs more coverage in the Lead section, not less.
2. The Trust maintains EvidenceBase, a database of over 2,000 UK scientists willing to contribute their knowledge to inform public debate. - this is not the best sentence ever, but removing the struck words omits a key point. SAS specifically promotes recourse to evidence in public discourse and policy decisions, specifically excluding arguments from authority and ignorance.
3. Eliding those two sentences creates a bit of a run-on and misplaces the citation. Please never place citations adjacent to text they are not being used to support.
4. actively and as a treatment are both redundant. A statement signed is very different from a petition. I expect that this change was made to tighten the language and improve readability - a laudable goal, but please do not discard nuances when doing so.
5. I am not sure what the next change (BCA suit) is trying to say - support the reverted version unless this can be clarified.
6. Just saying that press coverage exists I agree is not all that useful; this needs a statement of the level of furor sparved or the tenor of the predominating coverage or something along those lines.
7. and breaks a fairly delicate sentence structure. I know there are a great many references there (most of them my fault, if I recall correctly), but please remember to check your wording in preview if the markup gets in the way in the edit pane.
8. Peer review is a fairly major issue both for SAS and for people covering them.
9. The descriptors give the reader a quick run down of SAS's view on each issue without devoting too much text to each. Many of these are highly polarized debates where the sides label themselves as pro goodthing1 and pro goothing2 that is the opposite of goothing1, making your proposed grouping less meaningful.
10. Assuming that that is an accurate summary of the Media Lens source, it is good to relay their reasons for criticism as well as the fact of it.
11. received positive coverage might be a littl WP:WEASEL, but it distinguishes that they are not being mentioned in the same way as, say, Answers in Genesis.
12. as well as, if the phrase is used at all, should group the commentors logically. There seems more commonality between the RS and the NSF than the NSF and individual scientists.
13. Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Particular attribution.

- 2/0 (cont.) 04:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi 2/0, thanks for your efforts. I'm a tad confused in places as to whether you are referring to my suggested changes or Verbal's partial revert version, so this reply may be off the track in places for which I apologise in advance.

Re: the database, I think we have a few issues. First, that sentence is a dog! I'm happy to tweak it differently, but it definitely needs work. I think that it is implicit that these scientists are intended to contribute to public debate as experts - and perhaps this is a better phrase - otherwise it would just be a database of people. So how about ...of over 2,000 UK scientists willing to use their expertise to help inform public debate.

If that citation doesn't apply to the previous sentence then we should provide one for it - otherwise the impression is that the reference covers both since the second sentence implicitly references the first. One advantage of leaving the Director's name is that we can then directly refer to her in the criticism section (MediaLens ref) since she is the target of the criticism. I'm not sure on the policy surrounding repeating RS criticisms of living people, however.

I think 'as a treatment' adds clarity. I had to stop and think what they were wanting to condemn homeopathy for, so I assume others will too. It's a pretty uncontroversial addition I would have thought.

I agree that a signed statement and a petition are different things. But a signed statement used to lobby for change is a petition. I think it is inaccurate to call this a signed statement since they are not signing it in their capacity as researchers, but rather as political creatures who happen to be professional researchers. And do we have a secondary source that states that all signatories are scientists BTW, or are we relying on primary docs here?

I'm not sure what you mean about the BCA bit... is that the second petition? If so, i) it's another petition ii) it's signed by 15,000 people, so they can't (by definition) all be 'personalities' iii) adding the various walks of life from whence the signatories spring is an unnecessary rhetorical flourish - and we can't say that they are representing these professions, they are presumably signing as individuals not as elected representatives!

Happy to include info on furor and tone, but it mustn't be OR. Do we have a source for this?

The delicate structure results from more rhetorical additions. 'Criticising', 'denouncing', 'warning', and 'denouncing' are all superfluous to the fact that they have targeted a number of areas. There is also the mixing of things they support with things they reject. I suggest it is easier on the reader to clump the pros and cons together in two separate sentences. I'm presuming all of these things are major things for SAS - otherwise they wouldn't be included, no?

I know nothing about SAS, but my first reading left me with the impression of a fairly thick veneer of pro-SAS bias in this article, and I think anything that tones that back to a more NPOV is a good thing. We can't make the judgement about whether the coverage was positive without a source that does the work for us, otherwise we're back to OR. It isn't a bad thing to allow readers to follow the citations and make up their own minds either - but we should remain neutral unless backed by sources. This isn't pathetic (per Verbal's view - I know you didn't imply that), this is WP policy.

I drew the 'as well as' from the original. Perhaps this is better: They have been mentioned in publications from the Royal Society, the U.S. National Science Foundation, and in the personal writings ofBen Goldacre and Steven Novella.

Again, thanks for taking the time to comment 2/0. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 11:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• I tweaked the EvidenceBase sentence as suggested. I think that that wording maintains the point of the database.
• The problem is one of attribution, really, the source is fine.
• BCA = British Chiropractic Association, yes.
• Source needed for level and tenor of coverage, yes; I will check for one, but for the moment mentioning that there is a fair bit is better than just dropping that citation in at the end of the paragraph.
• Importance as determined by level and quality of coverage by independent sources, yes. The problem in this case with separating by pro/con is that being pro-GM is a different quality of support than being pro-peer review. A more logical separation, to my mind, would be: celebrities, marketing, and peer review in one sentence with homeopathy, GMOs, self-testing, detox, and miracle cures in the other. This separates the broader from the more specific issues.

I also closed your italics tag - hope you do not mind. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the italics tag fix. I think it is a mistake not to call the petitions by their correct name - these are political actions, not statements of fact - and I think labeling them accordingly makes it clear to readers that the SAS is setting itself up as a means of scientists engaging in activism rather than as an outlet for their research. I might pop in the relevant {cn} tags to help track how we're going on that front. I'm inclined to think that a {POV} tag might be appropriate too at the moment until we get a better balance in terms of the criticism etc. and some of the language being used is, as you put it nicely, "a littl WP:WEASEL"y. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 08:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that second petition description is still too POV having all those professions 'represented' - that's not a viable claim. Much simpler and NPOV to say there are the 15,000 signatures. Also having a blog as a source is not great - so it should be flagged as such - and one of those authors does not appear on that blog, so I'll remove them for the moment. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 08:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

There are two things: a statement signed by the 35, and a petition signed by the people and groups mentioned, plus a public section. I feel Blippy's edit didn't receive any support here, is incorrect, and introduces a POV. As F&W says, I think Blippy's personal POV is getting in the way here. I have reverted this edit. Verbal chat 08:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Then why did you revert the changes to the second petition? I'm quietly confident that readers do not wish to be bored with the trivial details of what the headings are on the petition or how SAS chooses to sort the names, nor do I believe we have that information from a secondary source. The inclusion of the professions is utterly innaccurate and implies that only such people have signed when the SAS call for "everyone you know". This is a straight petition and 15,000 sigs is all the credibility it needs from an objective source like WP. Please point out where F&W said that my personal POV is getting in the way. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 10:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

References

References in lead

I have just added to requested refs to the lead, however there is more than enough support for these statements in the body. I feel we should return to a reference free lead and add these refs to the appropriate place in the body if they're not there already. Verbal chat 08:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Re recent edit summary, that came close to a legal threat: Libel? How? BLP policy doesn't seem to be against including such easily verifiable information. Verbal chat 08:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Well at least you acknowledge it was not a threat - I would consider it a gesture of good will if you removed the template you used on my talk page. The sentence implies that Goldacre has given positive coverage to SAS. If Goldacre does not, in fact, subscribe to the political actions of SAS then you are potentially defaming him by associating him with an entity he does not support. The ref you added still doesn't fix the problem. If it is so easy to verify, then do it. I'm not suggesting Goldacre isn't supportive of SAS, but until we provide a clear RS on this point we should not presume to associate him with it. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 11:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I think I've used my 3RR, so you should fix the problem one way or the other. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 11:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The Goldacre reference supports the text. I feel the references should be removed from the lead per my reasoning above and standard pracice. Verbal chat 11:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I support removing the reference markup from the lead - this article is neither so long nor so contentious to require them. Any direct quotes (if for some reason they are needful in the lead) should still be attributed at each use, but with the use of good summary style it should be immediately apparent where to go in the article for more complete information. Provided that the references are well-chosen from the body, in full accordance with WP:PROMINENCE, and not stylistically burdensome, I would not say their inclusion is actually wrong - just sub-optimal. {{fact}}-bombing an accurate summary is disruptive; if the lead is unsynched from the body, it should be updated.

On the topic of disruption, I note that 3RR is a bright line beyond which edit warring is almost certainly occuring regardless of the context. It is not a right accorded each editor, and fighting over content with the undo button is unproductive edit warring even below the threshhold. I would prefer not to go to WP:RPP - can we instead agree to avoid edits that any reasonable person should gather will be reverted, and just build a consensus here? - 2/0 (cont.) 18:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree about the lead, and I agree about the number of reverts here. I restored the removed material (WP:PRESERVE), and then addressed the problems, first by adding a reference and then by adding a quote. I did this as two edits each time as it was quicker to edit the old version rather than copy and paste from history each time, and then make the improvements. Each time this was met with a complete revert to a single prior version and no discussion here despite being asked.

I would support any editor that removes or comments out the unnecessary refs from the lead. I feel that in some ways the article has improved, but this is a very painful way of doing it. Verbal chat 20:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The main problem is the descriptor "scientific misinformation". We should probably precede that with "that they describe as" or "which they claim to be" or "what they consider"... then we can probably safely ditch the ref tag. I think the media coverage is less controversial. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 00:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

POV and OR

There is an inordinate reliance on primary source material here, and I think probably quite a bit of OR going on as a result. Suggestions? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 00:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Most of those are being used to support the statement that the linked documents exist. Importance to the topic is established by what outside observers report ... in the remaining references. SAS is absolutely the best source for things like their mission statement. Did you have any particular problems besides the number of times www.senseaboutscience.org is included in ref tags? - 2/0 (cont.) 04:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

There is inappropriate material under the Reception area - the long list of their causes has nothing to do with reception and is all primary sourced. I have no problem with sourcing them for their causes, but not in that section - perhaps a new section is needed on their mission? All of the petition stuff is primary sourced, this isn't really acceptable. We can't rely on them alone for information about their success or otherwise, this needs to come from secondary sources - especially the long list of occupations (which I still think is redundant) that appears to serve no purpose other than to attempt to lend credibility to their campaign. If there are no secondary sources then a lot of this stuff needs to be qualified accordingly. The positive coverage remains OR in its present form, and those are personal writings of Novella - I note the flood of refs are yet to materialise attributing positive coverage to Goldacre. I think there is too much repetition of the causes, we should look at merging the ill placed reception material into the causes section. In fact, I'm not clear on why there is a distinction between projects and causes - these could both me merged into a single section called Activities or somesuch. The homeopathic quote on Channel 4 looks like a rather blatant POV - we need to either give a quote to both parties, or merely describe the SAS response. It seems quite unbalanced as it stands. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 06:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Claims of an 'LM network' have been denied." - LM Network has not been explained, so it's not obvious if it has anything to do with the preceding claims. Also the ref doesn't say anything to that effect either. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 07:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Most of these complaints don't have merit. Sourcing a list of their causes to the organisation itself is not in the least controversial, even in the "reception" area. What exactly are you disputing about the petition section? The occupations of those involved is central to the activities of this group, as is described in the article, hence it is very relevant. The positive coverage is an acceptable - just look at the references (and have a look at allowed, obvious conclusions in WP:OR). This simple and uncontroversial description of references is common practice across wikipedia. It seems removing some of this material would be trying to unbalance the article to make SaS look less credible, and hence violate WP:NPOV. I do agree though that several sections could be expanded. Verbal chat 08:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I said inappropriate in the reception area, not controversial. The occupations are irrelevant, but more importantly they are not appropriately sourced - if they are central then we need a secondary source, otherwise it's just parroting SAS propaganda (in the soft sense). I doubt very much that only certain professions are allowed to sign the petition, and we should not propogate false impressions here. If there's a secondary source that vouches for the info, fine, but let's use that instead. The current concern is that the article is trying to make SAS look more credible. We shouldn't do either, just state the RS info and let readers decide credibility levels. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 08:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

In what way is SaS not a WP:RS? Verbal chat 08:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I never said it wasn't. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 11:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

{outdent} I have no desire to edit war over the POV tag. Let me instead quote from WP:NPOV "In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved.

Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed" I have expressed my views here about POV prior to placing the tag (despite one editor suggesting I haven't), and am happy to continue the discussion until we reach consensus. But I would appreciate someone else reinstating my good faith tag. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 11:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe, Blippy, that you are mistaken regarding the use of primary sources in Sense About Science#Reception. At present there are two links in that section to the SAS website - one supporting the statement that they held a conference (followed by a description of how that conference was reported) and one supporting the statement that Brown issued a rebuttal on the website.

Regarding the NPOV tag, there is also a burden to make specific proposals for in your view fixing the article. The tenure of any such tag should be very brief. Other than adding the tag, what specific edits do you think would bring the article in line with policy? Neither of the other editors in this discussion think that the article is seriously out of balance, so please be specific. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The POV tag should be removed unless something concrete is brought here. I have just reviewed the article and see no need for this tag, having read all of Blipys comments here. If Blippys changes were allowed then the tag could be justified! --NottsStudent09 (talk) 10:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Blippy and cn tags

In this edit, Blippy removed the word rebuttal for no reason I can see, and placed two fact tage. The second tag, next to Peter Fisher is already referenced by the same Channel 4 report attached to the same sentence. I just watched the report and can confirm it justifies the text. The first tag already has a reference attached, so I don't see the need for the tag there either. Can Blippy please justify these edits, as otherwise they will likely soon be reverted. Verbal chat 08:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well the reason was given in the edit summary (and above) - maybe you didn't look? It's tautological. The quote seemed to be what the ref pointed to, it wasn't obvious that Fisher was in the same report - it needs to be reworded if this one ref is the source otherwise a reader will have the wrong impression. We should also have a quote for Fisher, or else drop the puffy quote. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 08:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The ref is at the end of the sentence, and supports that sentence. Hardly unusual. Please remove your tags, as they are not required. We don't need "parity of quotes". Verbal chat 08:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not advocating parity of quotes. I'm advocating NPOV. As it stands it is clearly POV. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 09:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Blippy, you're crashing about this article like a bull in a china shop. I added some of those quotes and references you're worried about, like the homeopathy one and the LM network one, and I can assure you that the references back the statements in the article, and that they're appropriate for inclusion and present a balanced viewpoint. Before making any more edits, please concisely and clearly state what you think is wrong with the article and how to correct it. Fences&Windows 13:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that is a fair, or helpful, characterisation of my efforts here. I have expressed my concerns, made edits, and been reverted. I am attempting to collaborate to make this article better but am being cast in the light of a hostile intruder. I am particularly concerned that editors are not respecting my position and removing the POV tag which accurately describes the current state of this article. Ad hominems in conjunction with reverts of the relevant tags starts to look like bullying. I am merely asking for the POV tag to be put back in place so that we can proceed on a mutually respectful basis. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 13:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

How is the article not neutral, in your opinion? I'm fairly critical of the organisation myself, and I think the article is balanced, and Verbal is more supportive of them, and he's fine with the article too. We don't need a POV tag for you to explain what you want changed on the talk page. Fences&Windows 21:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me requote "In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. I am happy to go further into the details that I have already outlined, but if you are unwilling to comply with a pretty obvious policy then I fail to see how you will be persuaded by anything that requires more detailed discussion. I would ask that you AGF and reinstate the tag so we can proceed with dealing with the issues. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 08:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The {{POV}} tag includes "Please see the discussion on the talk page." That does not mean that anyone opposed to the tag has to go to the talk page and explain why the article is NPOV. Instead, the editor who believes there is an issue needs to clearly say what the issue is: identify some text in the article and clearly say why the text violates NPOV. Johnuniq (talk) 11:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you haven't read the preceding discussion. I have already been doing this, and have committed to continuing the discussion, but I must say that the resistance to having the tag, when there is clearly disagreement, is a real lack of AGF and helps to demonstrate just how much POV protection there is going on here. Put the tag back and we can continue to discuss, if it is so clearly NPOV as people are asserting then the matter should be resolved quite quickly. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Improvements needed to remove POV tag

Perhaps this section will help focus our efforts. I think the version that stands currently is close to being able to do away with the tag, but I would like to see what sticks (given the volatility of the recent days) before I would endorse the POV tag removal.

My main concerns centered on the petition (which looks ok at the moment), the over emphasis on primary source material in describing details of their campaigns, and some key descriptors that remain in the article. I am confident that once people see that I'm not 'a bull in a china shop' we will be able to reach consensus on these last few points since I think they're pretty obvious. I've spelled this out above, but am happy to expand upon it here if people wish. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Reading WP:NPOV and WP:NPOVD shows that more is needed to support inclusion of a {{POV}} tag. In essence, NPOV means that all significant views published by reliable sources are included in the article, and that neutral language is used. If a RS says SAS has certain faults, and if that view is "significant", then it should be included. Is there a significant, sourced view that is missing from the article? What text in the article is not neutral? Johnuniq (talk) 23:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

People seem more concerned about the tag than the NPOV issues! I don't believe neutral language is being used here - as mentioned on numerous occasions above. I have not delved into other significant views, I'm happy to do that next, but I would much prefer to get the language right first. I believe I have highlighted the areas of concern several times. Have a look above, and if you can't see them (including the paragraph I started this section with) I'll be happy to clarify. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 02:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The principle here is that POV tags should not be used as weapons in an edit war. The purpose of a tag is to draw attention to a problem. Once attention has been drawn, there is no justification for maintaining the tag. Looie496 (talk) 19:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Blippy, can you briefly go over the issues you see with the article again, in a new section, taking into account the comments made by Verbal and others? It'd really help clarify what the precise issues are. I honestly don't see how the article isn't neutral. The POV tag is a distraction. Fences&Windows 22:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Reference list tag

Hi, my understanding is the reflist|2 tag should make two columns of references, however I'm only getting one column. Is there a problem with the page, or is this an Opera issue? --NottsStudent09 (talk) 12:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I see two columns of references. Verbal chat 12:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It is a browser issue. Awickert (talk) 15:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Lead: charity or lobbying group

I just saw there was an edit and revert over whether to refer to Sense About Science as a "charity" or a "lobbying group". The two are not distinct, obviously, but Wikipedia should be based on reliable sources. I had a poke through the sources provided in the article, and the ones which are relevant refer to SAS as follows:

• charity (or derivative)
  • "charity" → Guardian, Guardian (2), New Scientist, Times Higher Education Supplement, Times Higher Education Supplement (2), Royal Society
  • "independent charity" → Channel 4 News
  • "charitable trust" → BBC News, BBC News (2), New Scientist
  • "independent medical charity" → Independent
  • "independent charitable trust" → Telegraph
• lobby group (or derivative)
  • "lobby group" → Guardian
  • "lobbying body" → Times Higher Education Supplement
  • "pro-evidence-based science lobbying group" → Telegraph
  • "campaign group" → Telegraph, Sense About Science
  • "non-profit lobby group" → Nature
• "group" → NSF
• no descriptor → BBC News, Independent, Ben Goldacre badscience.net, Steven Novella (Neurologica), Times Higher Education Supplement

I excluded The Times in my comparison as it is behind a paywall. I excluded the stories about Simon Singh that didn't mention Sense About Science. I excluded 'The Scientist' article because it's written by Tracey Brown from SAS. I also excluded Powerbase because it's a wiki and therefore not worth much in the WP:RS stakes. The Neurologica source (which shouldn't really be counted for the purpose of this debate anyway) only quoted what SAS say on their website, so I've put them in the "no descriptor" category as the author, Steven Novella, didn't provide his own description but simply quoted SAS.

Based on this analysis, I'd say that reliable sources prefer "charity" or some variant thereof to "lobby group" or some variant thereof by a ratio of 12 to 6. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I am in awe of your committment to examining the evidence. Well done. Krelnik (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Just updated with the Royal Society and Channel 4 News sources (which I dug out archive.org links for). —Tom Morris (talk) 19:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I was going to add, they're registered on the Charity Commission's website here if there's any doubt that they're a charity. Skeptic sid (talk) 15:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sense About Science. 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/20081120182246/http://www.littleatoms.com/traceybrown.htm to http://www.littleatoms.com/traceybrown.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)