Talk:Alliance to Save Energy

Neutrality
I have reverted the latest edits of Adamhudson, as they are suspiciously biased in favor of the Alliance. (If there is any way to obtain the IP of a user I would like to know, since I think this deserves some checking up on).

Examples: Hudson replaced "The alliance states that its mission is to support..." with "the mission of the Alliance is to support...". That the Alliance has stated its mission is a fact. Whether this statement is actually true is unproven, and there is reason to doubt it especially given the organization's heavy vested interest in commerce.

In fact, Hudson has removed mentions of the alterior motives the Alliance might have in supporting the banning of incandescent light bulbs, particularly of the fact that major manufacturers of CFLs are founding members.

He's changed the description of what the alliance is from "a coalition consisting largely of technological, industrial and energy corporations"-- a fact that is is plainly evident from looking at the list of founding members that Hudson removed-- to "a non-profic coalition of buisiness, government, environmental and consumer leaders"-- again, blatantly contradicted by the missing list.

Hudson has also taken the liberty of concluding the debate about the banning of incandecent bulbs and burying mention of the Alliance's support of the Clean Energy bill at the bottom of the History section. This fact is of primary interest in this article and deserves a section of its own.

The remaining "history" part of the article also reeks of public relations language and needs thorough cleanup.

Timrb (talk) 04:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I, adamhudson, am a representative of the Alliance to Save Energy. My recent edits were not made to conceal information about the Alliance to Save Energy but to correct biased and/or misleading information about the Alliance to Save Energy. The edits that I made were intended to restore a neutral point of view. I do, however, see some of Timrb's point about some of the edits.

My main concern with recent edits to the article were related to the Alliance Associates and the CFL discussion.

These edits couched Alliance founder level associate members as founders of the Alliance, which they are not. They are companies who make financial contributions to the Alliance of $25,000 or more. We have over 140 member companies of varying level and, if the founders are to be outlined at all, then at the very least every single one of them should be named.

While the Alliance does participate in the CFL's debate, it does not define the debate and the debate does indeed deserve its own page. What I consider the most important issue related to CFLs is their cost, not where the information lives on the page. CFLs are more expensive up-front, but are actually cheaper over the life of the bulb, so it is incorrect to merely say that CFLs are "more costly." It is more accurate to say, "The purchase price of a CFL is typically higher then the purchase price of an incandescent. However, the low energy consumption and long life span of CFLs result in lower life-cycle costs than their incandescent counterparts."

The history section of the article is take from the history we maintain of our own accomplishments. Edits and additions are welcome, but there is value in the content.

Adamhudson (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Edits and corrections to affiliate members and history
I have made several significant edits to the article related to the history and affiliates. Adam, I've removed the affiliates that do not have wikipedia articles; I understand your position to include all of them, but notability should limit the list to those with blue links. There were a number of redlinked names that I fixed; I probably missed several. Honestly, all-inclusive lists are politically correct from corpcomm view, but they're pretty uninformative to most readers. Is there any way to succinctly group and describe some of these more significant members? Flowanda | Talk 08:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is. Revert to the list that names the "founding-level" members.
 * Timrb (talk) 12:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. Timrb (talk) 04:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Article is still not neutral
The fact that Adamhudson-- no offense, Adam-- is a member of the Alliance to Save Energy is a conflict of interest. Also, paulhlusko, is there something you want to tell us?

Paul: Please do not abuse the transparency that I have given you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.139.142.66 (talk • contribs)


 * Note that 63.139.142.66 deleted the link to paulhlusko's Digg submissions page, which contains posts about the alliance to save energy. What's all this about "transparency"? I don't think anyone who is actively engaged in viral PR techniques should be editing this article.Timrb (talk) 03:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is still chock-full of PR language. It is by no means unbiased; it is in dire need of more non-alliance editors to come in and review it. Until then, please keep the NPOV tag. Timrb (talk) 04:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Corporate statement
The "Corporate statement" section was not only not neutral, but provided little additional factual information. I have removed it.

It is blatant PR language, straight from the mouth of a self-proclaimed PR organization. This tone is completely inappropriate for Wikipedia, and it basically repeats what was stated at the top of the article; the alliance's "mission" and that it participates in PR & research. As it stands, there is no value in this section other than horn-blowing. If someone sees a particular fact in there that might be of value that is not mentioned somewhere else, then please re-write it in neutral, factual language and insert it where appropriate. Otherwise let it be. Timrb (talk) 05:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Reverting Addition of Greenwashing
I am reverting the recent addition of the term Greenwashing as it is given no context in the content of the article and seems only serves to discredit work that the Alliance does building coalitions of organization to further the cause of energy efficiency in addressing climate change, high fuel prices. If a see "see also" term is to be added to any page it should follow and explicit discussion of the issue within the article to give it content and relevance. Adamhudson (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

EU-ASE
Is it worth mentioning the European Alliance to Save Energy? Link: https://www.ase.org/profile/european-alliance-save-energy-eu-ase or http://www.euase.com/ directly.

Or would that be worth of a new article? 195.75.72.179 (talk) 09:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)