Talk:Federation of German Scientists

OR template
At present, this article reads like a translation of a blurb on the VDW website. It needs secondary sources (academic literature, press coverage, etc.) Jayen 466 19:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Article name
THE ORGANIZATION’S NAME IS TRANSLATED WRONG "Vereinigung Deutscher Wissenschaftler” is MISTRANSLATED as “Federation of German Scientists”. That is COMPLETELY WRONG!! Its correct translation is “German Scholars' Association”. 1. “Federation” is the wrong translation for “Vereinigung”. The correct translation of “Vereinigung”, is “association”. The German term for “federation” is “Bund”, not “Vereinigung”. 2. The German term “Wissenschaftler” means “scholar”, not “scientist.”. The German term for “[natural] scientist" is “Naturwissenschaftler”, Moreover the 2 top dogs in the organization are both political scientists and connected to Christian churches (Catholic and Protestant respectively), involved in peace research, conflict resolution, ethics, transformation of society. They’re ban-the-bomb types. As a matter of fact, they got their start in 1959 as a bona fide group of scientists. Its founders were outstanding physicists like Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker, Max Born and Otto Hahn who joined to oppose equipping the new German army with atomic weapons. So when it was founded it could legitimately call itslf, say “German Scientists' Association”. That’s perfectly OK with me, I sympathize strongly with this  current of thought. However it is FRAUD to call it in its current state a group of scientists. This group gave the biologist Arpad Pusztai its whistleblower prize for finding fault with GMO. Consequently it is essential to verify the group’s scientific expertise. Everything I have read CLEARLY indicates that they don’t give a tinker’s damn about [natural] scientific method, they are solely politically motivated. Check who else they so honoured. Sources: wiki.de and group´s web site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mumbo-jumbophobe (talk • contribs) 05:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As long FGS is stating on their official website Federation of German Scientists (FGS), we go with this naming. prokaryotes (talk) 00:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Removal of references
Recently the editor Alexbrn removed a press release and source in regards to the 2015 Whistleblower awards (DIF), and switched the reference to a opinion attack piece, which does not mention one of the recipients. Clearly in NPOV violation. prokaryotes (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right we need a source for Bryant. Now (re-)added. You're wrong about NPOV though, the coverage in Der Zeit is exactly the sort of secondary source we need to be building on, otherwise we might give the misleading impression that this prize-giving was uncontroversial. Alexbrn (talk) 15:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV and WP:BLP also means to write a balanced article, but you removed the English press release of the announcement, now the reader only has an opinion written in German (and a brief mention in the other article which focuses on Bryant). This is not a neutral and balanced editorial. prokaryotes (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree for the reasons I gave. A press release is a poor source. Alexbrn (talk) 15:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SELFSOURCE: Wikipedia Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves. Basically what you saying above when you disagree is that you either don't know WP guidelines or you ignore them. prokaryotes (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You were using the source not simply to state things about the Federation, but to imply questionable things about Séralini & his research. Of course if we just wanted to say "S was awarded the prize in 2015" it would be fine to use a press release. But what we've got now is better: some on-point, neutral commentary. Alexbrn (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Honestly, either I miss something, or your opinion about "questionable things" vz. "neutral commentary" in this particular case is incomprehensible. Prokaryotes left the following text, under the heading Recipients:
 * 2015 Gilles-Éric Séralini and Brandon Bryant.
 * Isn't this exactly what you say that one could use a press release to confirm? Where in Prokaryotes's version can I find the implied "questionable things about Séralini & his research" you refer to?
 * You then (in the present article version ) replaced Prokaryotes's simple note about the fact that S got the award with a longer evaluating sentence:
 * 2015 Gilles-Éric Séralini and Brandon Bryant. In the view of Die Zeit it was ironic that Séralini was being given an award by a scientists' association, since he was not a "whistleblower" but an anti-GMO activist whose research was scientifically discredited.
 * which you call "some on-point, neutral commentary". You cannot seriously call this "neutral".  You may seriously think that this is "correct"; but that is not synonymous to "neutral".


 * I also read the four suggested sources, both the articles Prokaryotes gave as references, and the Die Zeit article you added. It did not make it easier for me to understand the reasons for your edit.  Prokaryotes added three sources, one "press release", which was very positive to Séralini, but does not mention Bryant; one 'neutral to mildly negative' (US military affiliated) source reporting about Bryant , and one vehemently negative article about Séralini in particular, and the whistleblower award in general, from Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), .  After some discussion you restored the Bryant article, but replaced both the press release and the FAZ article with an article from Die Zeit , which also is very negative to Séralini, but not that negative to the award in general.  In fact, the DZ article author seems to indicate that the award jury may have made a mistake in good faith, not understanding that Séralini in fact was miscredited as a scientist.
 * After reading the "press release", I think I safely can exclude the "god faith but mistaken" alternative. The award jury was highly aware of what they were doing.  Moreover, they refuted each and every argument in the DW article - yes, the press release was published earlier, but the DW arguments were not new, and they were well-known to the jury.  The jury  may be right or it may be wrong, but hardly mistaken out of ignorance of the controversies around Séralini.  They claim, forinstance, that Séralini and his team has been working in this kind of research for a long time; that S. has published numerous articles on toxicology, both before and after the criticised one; that he even has had more articles accepted later by Food and Chemical Toxicology (the journal which withdraw the controversial article); that that article officially was withdrawn for "inconclusiveness", not for any scientific errors; that this is not an acceptable ground for withdrawing an article, and that indeed COPE criticised FCT for this retraction as "a clear breach of international ethical guidelines"; that the article (with rather minor modifications) was later re-published in another scientific paper; and so on, and so forth.
 * Again, I do not know whether the award jury argument summary or the DZ and FAZ articles (or neither) are right; but I know that neither can be presented here as "some on-point, neutral commentary".


 * Another point of importance for the article: The prize awarding has been going on for a long time - for 16 years, according to the FAZ article. According to the press release, in 2005, the award was also given to the bioscientist Arpad Pusztai for similar reasons as Séralini's prize.  The FAZ article possibly alludes to this, when it claims that the prize has been given for non-scientific activities before.  I think that earlier recipients of whistleblower awards should be added to the list here.


 * Suggestions: Remove the DZ statement from the information about the award recipients 2015 (restoring the short and neutral Prokaryotes formulation). Add the 2005 award recipient name; and recipients from other years, if they are easy to find.  Insert a sentence about the price sometimes/often being controversial, in the general description of the prize; and reintroduce the FAZ reference there.  Retain the Military.com and DZ references at the 2015 item.  If it is possible to find a short press-release, covering both recipients. we may add it.  The long "press-release" with the award jury motivations is more suitable for e.g. the article about the Séralini affair; as are any direct quotes by Séralini's opponents.  I am not that sure that direct references to the various controversies are necessary in the list items.  (Besides, any alleged whistle-blowing almost is "controversial by definition".) JoergenB (talk) 00:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:PSCI. Neutrality requires that views significantly at odds with the mainstream are clearly identifiable. The DZ piece does this. Implying that Séralini was somehow validated by this award would not be neutral. The details aren't so important, but what we're not going to be doing in this article is lending credence to Séralini's work. Alexbrn (talk) 06:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I find it troubling that Alexbrn discredits a scientists by using attack pieces, removing his studies to outline his research (See Seralinis article history), and claiming he is doing pseudoscience. The editor is not in line with WP:BPL and has a strong POV and shows battleground behavior (follows my edits, makes claims about my edits that i engage in edit warring etc etc). If we cannot resolve this we likely need some actions from an uninvolved admin. prokaryotes (talk) 06:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I am saying nothing about Séralini, but I am insisting we clearly relay the mainstream view. I also never mentioned "pseudoscience" as it is not applicable here. Please note WP:PSCI applies to non-mainstream view of all types. Remember to WP:FOC: discussion of editors on an article Talk page is disruptive. Alexbrn (talk) 07:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Rather than put the commentary next to the name in the Award list, I would suggest moving it above the list. Having something saying "The 2015 award to Seralini caused some controversy ..."  I think the award list itself should just be the years and names. Ignoring the controversy though would be a clear NPOV issue. Ravensfire ( talk ) 18:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The Zeit is quite outspoken about the VDW and ILANA as such - "a bunch of gooddoers", a Jury awarding "junk-science" and a price going in the complete wrong direction. "Séralini is no Whistleblower, like Edward Snowden ... He is a Anti-Gentechnik-Aktivist, campaigning with doubtable means."Polentarion Talk 18:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC) PS.: That said, the topic is noteable and I tried to convert it into an actual article.

Categories
VDW is NOT a Science organization per se. Take longstanding member Egon Bahr - a journalist and politician which has done a lot for the Ostverträge, but he never had any academic credentials. Furthermore, the translation of Wissenschaft into Science is a classical error - VDW is far from excluding the humanities. Its more of a left leaning think tank, biggest role in the 1980ies and nowadays trying to get a foot into the whistleblowing business with miexed results. Therefore "No scientific" organization. Polentarion Talk 21:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Federation of German Scientists. 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/20070928202615/http://vdw-ev.de/ueber-vdw/goettinger18.html to http://vdw-ev.de/ueber-vdw/goettinger18.html

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) 07:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)