Talk:American Chemical Society

Award
Hi,

Could someone maybe write some subheader about the American Chemical Society Award(s) and make a redirect from the red link? Thanks! effeietsanders 12:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I am tempted to list the 2009 ACS National Award Winners on the ACS wikipage, with perhaps a short description of the winner's accomplishments. I realize that could quickly clutter up the page, especially if somebody gets ambitious and digs out old copies of Chemical & Engineering News magazines to list the winners from previous years.  But it still seems like a good idea to have this information in Wikipedia.  Any thoughts from other chemical types and/or general wikipedians?  Thanks in advance.  Raymondwinn (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Past presidents
Today I enlarged the list of ACS presidents. Should the list be arranged differently, perhaps in columns? - Astrochemist 04:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I changed the list of past presidents to a navigational box (which I thought was better). The anonimous disident reverted my edit. Any idea why? Mgnelu (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what User:Anonymous Dissident thought, but I think the navbox looks pretty bad on this page. Instead of a columnar list of items, there is a ragged set of rows: very hard to scan to find a certain year or person. Its use on the individuals' page isn't much better: still difficult to find info, but also hard to find simple things such as "who was previous/next?", again because it's tabular data presented in prose form. In addition, it's huge, taking up half or more of many of those people's individual pages. The navbox doesn't really serve any purpose other than collecting all the names in a difficult-to-use set; I think this is much less clear than a list in the main page and more confusing than a succession box on the person-pages. DMacks (talk) 20:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Today I readded the list of presidents, which was missing for a year. It probably is easier for most people to find the list here than on an official ACS page. Astrochemist (talk) 20:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is this entire list even here? People can get this from the ACS. And a whole bunch of these are ugly red (dead) links. Jack B108 (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm an employee of ACS. I updated the list to include the 2019 president. LetsGetChemical (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! DMacks (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Problems with Sourcewatch.com external link
I removed a link to the ACS sourcewatch.com wiki under External links since it violates Wikipedia's policy on external links. It states that one should avoid "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." The sourcewatch.com page was authored by only two editors. This link clearly violates the policy. If there is valuable information on the sourcewatch.com wiki page, then it can be integrated into here. M stone 16:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * At best, an extlink to this material would be usable as a citation to support some content. Just tossing it in as a loose extlink isn't good even if it were a reliable source because there's no explanation of it or obvious context or usefulness of that link. Wikipedia is a cited encyclopedia, not just a pile of links. DMacks 16:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In response to the thought that "ACS Wiki is there, why not this one?", the ACS Chemical Biology Wiki is not there as a content-site or source of information about ACS, but rather is part of ACS's actual content and/or services (perhaps it should be annotated as such?). DMacks 01:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've removed the "ACS Wiki" and two other links as irrelevant. It is a wiki related to ACS Chemical Biology, one of the dozens of journals published by ACS. As such, I don't see how it is relevant for a link section about ACS in general. Really, the only link that should remain IMO is the official ACS website, although perhaps the CAS and ACS Publications links are not all that unreasonable given that they are major ACS divisions. (The other links that I removed were another ACS Chemical Biology page and a news story about the ACS/Pubchem scandal. Random news articles don't belong as external links either, although they may be used as references.) --Itub 14:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable to me. DMacks 19:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Excessive Salaries
The following section:

As the Executive Director and CEO of ACS Ms. Madeline Jacobs is reported by Guidestar.org to receive a compensation of over $800,000 US per year. This compensation meets or exceeds that of many for profit firms with a similar revenue to ACS ($500M).

The controversial high compensation rates at ACS have been widely reported and have stirred controversy. The IRS form 990 shows the high compensation of several indivdiduals. With a free login, the 990 form can be obtained at guidestar.org. [3]. A watchdog group, idontcare.com has also reported on the issue. [4] In response, Ms. Jacobs promised to lower executive compensation at ACS in 2004, but since then has only raised the salaries. [5].

Should not be removed. An IRS form 990 is a publicly available reference. Guidestar.org is a non-profit, publicly available repository of such information, and there is no fee to access the 990. Given that, it seems disingenuous to conclude that a reference to guidestar.org is somehow a 'promotion' of guidestar.org. This is public, available information. The executives at ACS make a lot of money, which is easily searched and confirmed. A lot of people don't aprpeaciate that in a 501c3 non-profit to who scientists routinely hand over a free copyright to their work. Various groups have in turn published this disdain, and the executive director apparently even promised to address the issue. This all seems like fair game for wikipedia to me. Clearly referenced, public information, and a clearly documented controversy. One begins to wonder if someone has an NPOV issue with the sourcewatch wiki. Sandwich Eater (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Using primary sources such as tax form or a list of ACS salaries is considered original research, which is not permitted. I removed the ACS sourcewatch.com wiki ref since it violates Wikipedia's policy on external links. It states that one should avoid "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors."  The sourcewatch.com page was authored by only two editors. This link clearly violates the policy.
 * If there really is a controversy at the ACS with high salaries then you must produce a credible secondary source such as a news paper article or a book or a new letter. Perhaps the salaries of these officers is high, but you need to site source to support this.  M stone (talk) 03:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The way this "controversy" on ACS' salaries is now presented is not the greatest. If there is or was a controversy, more than one 2004 article in Science needs to be cited. Another article or group of ppl actually upset with the salary or salaries probably needs to be presented as evidence. Otherwise this info (such as M. Jacobs supposed $800K salary) should be moved out of the controversy section or removed altogether. Also, I think more could be done to clarify what is at stake from the standpoint of ACS (and the side of private publishing) in its feud with the NIH (PubMed's parent). One should not get the impression that it is simply the evil greedy ACS vs. sweet little innocent NIH. My two cents... Jack B108 (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

NPOV
They seem to be at least partly a lobbying group on behalf of the chemical industry. This needs to be explained. Right now there are controversies mentioned with no background information. How can we know if the president of the organization is being paid too much without knowing what the purpose of the organization is? Jaque Hammer (talk) 00:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You should read the page before you add tags. ACS is a non-profit organization that supports the field of chemistry.  The American Chemistry Council is the organization that represents the interests of American chemical companies. M stone (talk) 06:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Lobbying groups can also be organized as non-profits. Anyway the article needs to be more clear as to exactly what the purpose of the group is. Jaque Hammer (talk) 11:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know how much clearer it could be. It says in the first sentence "supports scientific inquiry in the field of chemistry." Under the founding of the ACS it also says it will “prove a powerful and healthy stimulus to original research, … would awaken and develop much talent now wasting in isolation, … [bring] members of the association into closer union, and ensure a better appreciation of our science and its students on the part of the general public.” It is a professional society and its activities are listed included lobbying. M stone (talk) 12:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits appear to be copied directly from website
I think that the contributions from Ddollemore were copied directly for the referenced web page and should be removed. M stone (talk) 22:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It sure sounds like a website in tone. That's...not what wikipedia is, even if it were originally-written content here. DMacks (talk) 22:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I checked the content was directly copied from |"About ACS". M stone (talk) 22:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the content is from our Web site, but it is the most accurate and up to date information about my employer, the American Chemical Society. We are perplexed that this information doesn't seem suitable for Wikipedia. Our goal is provide your readers/viewers with a complete and balance view of our organization. I would like to discuss this, please email me directly at d_dollemore@acs.org. Ddollemore 16:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text (see Copyright violations for details). The acs.org website is clearly marked "Copyright ©2010 American Chemical Society" and therefore not appropriate for Wikipedia.  In addition, one of the core policies of Wikipedia is Neutral point of view: content must be written from a neutral point of view.  Wording taken from the organization itself is inherently a single, non-neutral point of view.  Wikipedia also has guidelines about editing with a conflict of interest (see Conflict of interest), which seems to apply here.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Edgar, Any chance we could talk on the phone? We're fairly perplexed by all of this and would like to get some clarification and guidance from you.Ddollemore 12:395, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand that Wikipedia's policies and peculiarities can be quite confusing to newcomers. I would be happy to try to answer any questions that you have, but I would prefer to do so either at User talk:Edgar181 or by email.  (My email can be accessed through the "E-mail this user" link on the left side of that page).  -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

ACS Logo
I am an employee of the American Chemical Society. It has come to our attention that the logo shown on the Wikipedia page about our organization is inaccurate. The current version is shown on our website, www.acs.org, has a different treatment around the Phoenix' eye, no faint horizontal line through the lower portion, and includes the text components "ACS Chemistry for Life". Would the editors agree that the image on Wikipedia should be updated or removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KLindblom (talk • contribs) 16:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I really don't think there is a problem with the logo seen here: it looks better than the one on ACS.org. And I don't think that Wikipedia needs to list the slogan. If you have an image w/o the faint (very) line, upload it, but it is quite possible that someone will remove it if it contains the ACS' slogan, which is self-promotional. Jack B108 (talk) 21:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Scale of Prices
Scale of Prices" chapter seems to be valid. I checked the "Houses of Commons" document. It is very balanced. This is an important matter, which should be added, because it is relevant for the whole community... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riccione (talk • contribs) 09:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC) Riccione (talk) 15:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem with increasing cost of scientific journals is not one that is unique to ACS journals. To use this document that discusses problems with the industry as a whole, worldwide, to criticize the ACS's cost of one of it's journal seems inappropriate to me.  The content violates one of Wikipedia's core principles, WP:NPOV. It is clearly a one-sided criticism that doesn't include ACS's point of view and leaves out important context about this being a long-term worldwide trend in scientific publishing.  It is odd that it uses out of date information to make its point which suggests cherry-picking of data.  ChemNerd (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If it is not going to be fixed, I think it should simply be removed. ChemNerd (talk) 10:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It should be removed. It is not just a feature of the ACS so if it is anywhere should be in a more general page about scientific publishing.Chemical Engineer (talk) 13:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with the removal because the issue is not specific to the ACS. M stone (talk) 01:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Please, do not again just remove this chapter until the topic is resolved! The next delete will be marked as vandalism. Read the "House of Commons" report carefully! It is a balanced, carefully researched document, published by a parliament commission, not a personal opinion. The wiki entry “periodical crisis” discusses the general topic. No need to discuss the problems with the industry as a whole. This chapter describes a specific problem for a non-profit organization as the ACS!--Riccione (talk) 08:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please reframe from threatening other editors. We are not vandals. We have real concerns with this section. M stone (talk) 10:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Multiple other editors dispute its inclusion (at all, or at least as written), and there is scant support for it. It was fine to add it, but it's not fine to keep re-adding it while there is the dispute, and especially because the dispute centers on potentially unwarranted negative viewpoint against the article subject (better to err on the side of caution/exclusion). DMacks (talk) 13:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Please, do not remove this chapter until the dispute is resolved. If you just remove facts from the article you are indeed acting vandalism. It is too early to just delete the chapter, especially because the new version is very, very conservative. Please, read the House of Commons report carfully, before you again delete the chapter.--Riccione (talk) 07:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * First of all, please stop calling other people's behavior vandalism. Either you don't know what that word means or you are intentionally insulting others.  In either case, you shouldn't be using that word.  Second, the section that you keep adding has been repeatedly removed by other editors.  Wikipedia content should reflect editors' consensus, and clearly there is not yet consensus on what content to include.  When agreement is reached on how the content should read, then it can be added to the article.  But it should not be added before then.  ChemNerd (talk) 11:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * As for the modified content, it still presents a completely one sided point of view - one that is entirely critical of the organization. The section needs have some balance.  What is the position of the ACS on this topic?  How has it defended its actions?  The section also needs context.  If the article is going to criticize ACS journal price increases, how do those price increases compare to other journal prices during the same time period?  ChemNerd (talk) 12:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Please, do not delete additions of other editors by default. What do you mean by "one sided point of view"? I explained it many times now (and this is the reason I call it again vandalism, if somebody deletes it without knowing what he is doing...): This is not my personal point of view. It is the report of a parliament commission! That means, the result of 1) an inquiry 2) an anaylsis of the Scientific Services of the British parliament, 3) a hearing of several experts from ourside the parliament. So again, what do qou mean by "one sided point of view"?

Please, add a paragraph, which decribes the position of the ACS, but do not just delete the chapter.--Riccione (talk) 07:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems that Riccione has only ever edited this page and might not be aware of the way the Wikipedia works. Our opposition to the addition might indeed appear unreasonable. M stone (talk) 00:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be not a single argument, based on facts, against the addition. So please, do not just delete it. You might add some sources, which prove your personal view against it. Some citations, maybe?--Riccione (talk) 09:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with M stone; the opposition to the addition was unreasonable. During the last months Riccione edited the chapter due to the criticism of ChemNerd.--178.3.155.37 (talk) 12:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I suspect you are mis-interpretting User:M stone's comment and inverting its meaning. DMacks (talk) 09:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I oppose Riccione's additions. M stone (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Local section awards
User:GRodPe has added a large block of content about some awards by the ACS New York section. I'm wondering about WP:UNDUE. Certainly many of the 200+ local sections and technical divisions give various awards, and surely they choose "big names" in their associated fields. If the section/division were notable enough for an article, I would have no problem pushing that sort of content there, since it is major and public work related to it. However, are these awards notable in the greater ACS realm? Is the the fairly extensive content and minute detail as compared to ACS national awards content here appropriate? Or going the other way, if some of the awards themselves are major (independent of the awarding section), should they have their own article (again, reducing its weight here in ACS article)? DMacks (talk) 08:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that the awards in this section must represent awards at the national level regardless of which Section presents them and show notable honorees. This is why the Awards noted are national awards given by the New York Section. In fact the Nichols Medal was the first national award approved by ACS in 1902. The Leadership Awards is endorsed by ACS national and meets what should be the ACID TEST for any entry in this section: the active event participation of both the ACS CEO / Executive Director and the President of ACS. If neither of the two ACS LEADERS participates in the awards listed in this part of the Wiki entry, those awards should not be mentioned here. Also, I agree that it is not just listing big names, they must be truly extraordinary honorees. For example, under the leadership of the recipient of Lifetime Achievement Award, Dr. Roy Vagelos, Merck became Fortune's Most Admired Company 7 years in a row(!!), a feat not broken until recently by Apple. We are talking about one of the best industry leaders of all times. The entries in this section must be truly noteworthy so that readers will leave with an excellent impression of ACS. ACS membership has been declining for too long. We need to show the rich collection of compelling events to attract new members! GRodPe (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.20.144.206 (talk) 02:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ahah! I missed the point of them being "national awards" as meaning it's really an ACS award that happens to be hosted or managed in some way by a local section. In that case, essentially nothing about the NY Section is relevant, and should definitely not be mentioned early in the prose. The sole focus would be on the award itself. However, first, an award does not become notable by who its committee chooses to award (Notability is not inherited). And second, Wikipedia is very definitely not here to promote any cause or provide a positive-spin/polished image of an organization. Instead, WP:NPOV/WP:RS requires independent sources to support the value of major topics and content. DMacks (talk) 05:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ACS currently has 64 national awards (awards administered by the ACS national organization, not by local sections, divisions, or other affiliated groups). Currently the Awards section of this page names only one national award, the Nichols Medal. See correction below. (The "Gold Column" is not a national award, but rather a professional designation provided by an ACS technical division, and the Leadership Awards are provided by a topical group of a local section. See their respective citations.) National awards offered by ACS are listed here: http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/funding-and-awards/awards/national/bytopic.html
 * I am willing to contribute to Wikipedia's coverage of ACS national awards. I agree with DMacks initial assessment on notability, therefore I suggest renaming the section "National Awards" and modeling it after the Royal Society "Honours" example so as not to overwhelm the main ACS article. I invite comments from users before making such changes.
 * Please note my COI statement on my User Page. KLindblom (talk) 16:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Correction: The Nichols Award is not an ACS national award. It is awarded by the ACS New York Section. (Editorial: It is important and prestigious among ACS local section awards, however its inclusion on this page implies that it is awarded by the national ACS organization.) KLindblom (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Based on my experience writing about various scientists, I would agree that the current Awards section in no way accurately reflects the activities of the ACS in this area. I would be willing to work with KLindblom to help improve this. I would agree with the creation of a "National awards" section, with a clear definition of what defines a national award, to avert future confusion. Given the number of awards, creation of an addition page, similar to the Awards, lectures and medals of the Royal Society, and/or a collapseable template summarizing the list of awards would seem preferable to putting lengthy details on the main ACS page. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've worked with User:KLindblom to create and link to the page List of American Chemical Society national awards and to revise the Awards section; he did most of the redraft, and I've reviewed his changes, made some of my own, and integrated the content.  The "Gold Column" information, as a professional certification does not seem appropriate to the section and I'm removing the following paragraph from the ACS page.

"The Chemistry and the Law Division of the American Chemical Society commissioned Society Awards to create the "Golden Column" Award, bestowed on lawyers who have successfully completed ACS courses on gas chromatography, mass spectrometry, blood testing and pharmacology, and in addition to having passed a very rigorous exam on their scientific understanding. The stature of the award is meant to be commensurate with the work the individuals put in to achieve this honor. The award is a replica of the column used in a gas chromatograph.  It is die cast and plated, displayed on a wood base and includes a hanging personalization plate."

Divisions
The Divisions section could use updating, as mentions only five historic divisions when there are currently 32 technical divisions. I am willing to contribute to Wikipedia's coverage of this section, and I invite comments from users before making such changes. Would users prefer to see a bullet list of technical divisions with brief descriptions, similar to the example provided on American Physical Society, or do others have a better suggestion? Please note my COI statement on my User Page. KLindblom (talk) 16:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, I would agree that the information on the current page is sadly out of date... Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Revisions made Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Content in "Litigation and controversies" section
I'd like to make suggestions regarding the "Litigation and controversies" section. In general, many of these controversies are 10-20+ years old and may no longer be relevant to the article.
 * "Dialog v. ACS": The lawsuit was filed in 1990 and settled in 1993. The accuracy and neutrality of the section is not disputed, however a suit from 25+ years ago does not seem worthy of inclusion in the article. Even the most recent source offered (the 2012 Buntrock article) states that the 2012 update to Dialog and CAS's relationship was unrelated to the litigation. Does anyone object to the removal of this section at this time?
 * "ACS v. Google": A settled suit from 10 years ago, for which there is no evidence of impact to either party, does not seem relevant to the article.
 * "Opposition to open access": The choice of words in the heading ("opposition") implies that ACS has a uniform stance against open access. In fact, ACS opposed some open access efforts in the past, but has has recently taken steps in support of open access initiatives (as described in this section). I request changing the title to a neutral phrase, such as "Stance on open access," to more accurately reflect the current status of the issue.
 * Changed title to "Open access" Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 14:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * "Executive compensation": The use of Ms. Jacob's photo in this section implies that her compensation was controversial, however the controversy described is largely about Ms. Jacob's predecessor. Does anyone oppose the removal of the image from this section? Also, some examples (specifically the auctioning of vehicles 12 years ago) do not seem relevant today.
 * Removed photograph (she is no longer executive director, so its inclusion on the page is not as relevant). I would be inclined to keep the sentences about the cars as indicating that she made some response to the concerns, but I am agreeable to them being taken out if it is felt they are no longer relevant.  Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 14:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Please note my COI statement on my User Page - I am an employee of the American Chemical Society. KLindblom (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I think the main problem is that the section reads as a laundry list of litigation ACS has been involved in, without any context or indication of whether these are in fact the most notable cases. There are many sources, but nearly all of them are contemporaneous with the cases; given their age it would be nice to see more recent sources to show that they actually had lasting impact.  (The only example I can see of this is that the 1990 Dialog case is briefly discussed in a cited 2007 article.)
 * I agree that this section should be scrutinized for undue weight on these lawsuits, and for neutral tone. I'd rather not make substantial changes myself as I've done volunteer work for ACS, but it would be great if someone else could take a look.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 01:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I came here from the notice posted at WikiProject Chemistry. I'm a physicist and have never been a member of the ACS. Looking over the article and all the work the ACS has done, my personal opinion is that the litigation and controversy sections are a bit too much--ACS doesn't have a litigation branch and misuse of funds is a big deal to ACS members but perhaps not to the world at large. On the other hand, sourcing of this article is problematic. There are many sources, but most are primary. The best sourced are the litigation and controversy sections, because there is secondary reporting. So when I say litigation is overdone, that is synthesis on my part. Are there any good histories of the ACS not published by the ACS? We would need independent reliable sources to put this part of the ACS history in proper perspective. One thought is that some of the litigation seems more connected the CAS than to its parent, so might be moved to the Chemical Abstracts Service article. My two cents, --Mark viking (talk) 03:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I have to agree that the section appears to be excessive. I've taken a quick look at some of the cited sources and conclude there is little indication that any of these legal issues are all that notable.  If I recall correctly, this article has been the target of aggressive attempts to disparage the organization in the past, necessitating page protection, and the current state may still have lingering POV problems because of that.  ChemNerd (talk) 17:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I had the same thought about moving the Dialog case to the CAS article.  Any thoughts about third-party sources on history of ACS? Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 04:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * A quick search of internal, journal, and public records doesn't turn up any third-party sources on the history of ACS. The 1952 book "75 Eventful Years, a history of the American Chemical Society" was praised by reviewers in Isis for its independence, but it too was published by ACS.
 * In regards to moving Dialog to CAS, the group should probably first settle the question of what is encyclopedic before considering a move. A shorter and broader statement about litigation on the ACS article might be appropriate. For example, the three cases could be replaced with heading "Litigation," section "As a major provider of chemistry related information, ACS has been involved with several legal cases over the past few decades that involve access to its databases (1990 Dialog v. American Chemical Society, settled out of court in 1993), alleged trademark violation (2004 American Chemical Society v. Google, settled out of court in 2006), and alleged theft of intellectual property (2002 American Chemical Society v. Leadscope, concluded in 2012)." Citations are available in the current version.
 * This discussion might also consider whether other portions of the "Litigation and controversies" section remain useful to the encyclopedia and are given appropriate weight and neutrality, specifically PubChem database and Executive Compensation (second paragraph).
 * Please note my COI statement on my User Page - I am an employee of the American Chemical Society. KLindblom (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

There are plenty of places to look for independent sources about ACS history: news items in Science, Nature, and perhaps chemistry trade magazines not published by ACS, regular newspapers like the Washington Post and New York Times, and even biographies of people influential in the history of ACS, since they likely talk about the organization itself in addition to the person.

That being said, while I support an overhaul of the article, I don't think we need to wait to peruse every source to deal with the litigation section. Five people have commented and all have agreed that the section should be reduced to at least some extent. We should decide what specifically to do with each of the subsections. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 02:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I am happy with the consensus that the litigation section can reasonably be reduced; if people have a sense of what would be appropriate there, please go for it. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 19:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks all for the review and responses. Because changes to this section have been discussed and consensus is to reduce the weight of the section, specifically of the litigation listing, I have made a series of edits to revise the section. Specifically,


 * Condensing the section overall as discussed by the group
 * Reorganizing to place more recent issues at the top, and separating open access issues between journals and databases
 * Removing original research, content that was incorrectly cited, etc.


 * I invite you who have been involved in this conversation and others to review these edits and continue improvements.
 * Please note my COI statement on my User Page - I am an employee of the American Chemical Society. KLindblom (talk) 14:13, 7 July 2016‎ (UTC)


 * These edits look reasonable to me. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 02:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Executive compensation
The executive compensation conflict deals with events from 2002-2004, that don't seem to have a lot of current relevance. Does anyone feel that it is essential to keep this in? Its removal has been proposed at least once before. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Right. Let's also remove our articles on World War II, then. Of course this sourced content should stay. --Randykitty (talk) 12:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No need to stoop to false equivalence here, a simple "Keep" is all that's needed. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 14:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on American Chemical Society. 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/20160113022110/http://saicsc-acs.com/wcms/ to http://saicsc-acs.com/wcms/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070810030827/http://community.acs.org/journals/acbcct/cs/WIKI/tabid/54/Default.aspx to http://community.acs.org/journals/acbcct/cs/WIKI/tabid/54/Default.aspx

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on American Chemical Society. 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/20090327031227/http://portal.acs.org/portal/fileFetch/C/WPCP_008491/pdf/WPCP_008491.pdf to http://portal.acs.org/portal/fileFetch/C/WPCP_008491/pdf/WPCP_008491.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120729202551/http://community.acs.org/ to http://community.acs.org/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111002143642/http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/corg/content?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=PP_TRANSITIONMAIN&node_id=830&use_sec=false&sec_url_var=region1&__uuid=d3c8817f-e1ad-46c5-8c8d-0092ec3e1feb to http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/corg/content?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=PP_TRANSITIONMAIN&node_id=830&use_sec=false&sec_url_var=region1&__uuid=d3c8817f-e1ad-46c5-8c8d-0092ec3e1feb

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

International Chemical Sciences Chapters
I'm an employee with ACS. I updated the number of international chapters as is listed on acs.org. Is this okay? LetsGetChemical (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update. DMacks (talk) 00:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)