Talk:George C. Marshall Institute

bias
This article is biased. It is less about information on the Institute and more an exposé on their funders and members. I am going to re-write this article when I have time, unless those who wrote it origially care to remove biased statements and replace them with actual information about the institute. Ehidle 11:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is biased. Its on wikipedia and its about global warming. Need I say more? :) The machine512 18:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The reality is that the GMI has attracted media coverage primarily in the context of connections between its funding sources and its views on global warming. And, it has attracted primarily negative attention.  Google news archive search: .  The current and historical stances and advocacy of the institute are relevant to the article, and I think this material can and should be improved, but again, reality doesn't exactly paint a rosy picture of GMI based on its stances either...besides the anti-global-warming advocacy, they advocate for the use of paraquat (banned in the EU), CFC's, they argue that smoking is not harmful, etc.  Some organizations just promote bad science motivated by special interests, that's just reality; saying this in an article when it's well sourced is not bias, not POV, especially when the article clearly identifies who is making accusations of bad science, bias, or conflict of interest (and I see that in this article--it's crystal clear of exactly who is making which accusations--and the result speaks for itself).  Cazort (talk) 22:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The Institute is its funders and founders. If they weren't a major focus of the article then something would be wrong. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 20:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Two comments - (1) the quotation from McCain would be a fact if it appeared in the article about McCain. In this article it is an expression of opinion. Even though I agree with the statement by McCain, including opinions in articles can lead to quote or opinion wars. How many opinions can an article contain and still be objective? Do the opinions have to comply with a fairness policy of providing equal numbers of supporting and critical opinions? (2) In the second paragraph of Conflict of Interest it is asserted that Exxon no longer funds GMI. In the third paragraph under funding it asserts that Exxon is still funding GMI. Edsilha (talk) 18:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Financial motives
Regarding this addition:
 * Jeff Kueter, president of the George C. Marshall Institute, says that scientists who question whether global warming is real "are quickly labeled [as] having received money from the petroleum industry. The media considers their findings and their opinions to be somehow tainted because they've got a financial relationship. If you believe that financial interests drive results, then you need to look at everyone's financial interests and agendas." (National Journal, April 2, 2005)

This is a rhetorical quote that has no place or meaning in the article. "you need to look at everyone's financial interests" what does that mean? that other people are being funded by partisan sources? In fact most scientists work in an open manner and if there were any problem, don't you think we would have heard about it by now? Kueter is making a generalized unsubstantiated accusation -- if it is included in the article it needs to be done so for a reason, and not just non-factual rhetoric and spreading more FUD. -- Stbalbach 16:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't understand how the views of the institute's president could be considered unworthy of inclusion in the article. How about balancing his viewpoint with an opposing one? --Uncle Ed 16:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not the point of this article to get into a debate about the nature of funding in the sciences. If there is a reason for putting this quote in the article than say so, but just because the president said it doesn't give it any special authority - for all we know this is his personal opinion and not that of the institute. People say a lot of things but that doesn't mean it should be in Wikipedia. -- Stbalbach 16:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Stbalbach - the article from which the quotation is taken starts out Jeff Kueter, president of the George C. Marshall Institute, complains that the mainstream media does not respect climate-change research conducted by industry-funded groups, such as his Washington think tank. How in the world can you think what he said, to a reporter, and then had republished on the institute's website, is a "personal opinion"? Or that he wasn't specifically attacking the critics of (and I quote from the first sentence) his Washington think tank. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Is part of the group's purpose to publicize contrarian views? If so, the director's assertion that views are driven by money would relate to his group's purpose. His view is in conflict with Stbalbach's view, but that alone is insufficente to remove it.


 * Can we agree here that well-referenced information should not be deleted from an article simply on the grounds that it advance a particular point of view? --Uncle Ed 13:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree in general. But having any well-sourced quote or statement does not necessarily enrich an article.  Having read the article that the quote is from, I am fairly strongly convinced that if that article is to be referenced, it would be better to paraphrase rather than quote, and better to summarize the whole article in a sentence or paragraph instead of quoting a small piece of it.  The particular remarks in question, by Jeff Kueter, strike me as fumbling around--he's making a reactive assertion and not giving specific examples.  On the other hand, the article gives more specifics later on, to back up the same general position.  I think including the quote in the form it was included would almost make Kueter look bad; and we need to be sensitive due to WP:BLP here.  Cazort (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Matthew Crawford
I just added an article from the Chronicle of Higher Education linking Crawford to the GMI. It is not public access and does not have a free web version, although anyone who subscribes to the publication (or is at an institution that does) can view it online. This source:, and this press release: also verify that he served as Executive Director. It's pretty easy to connect the dots here, given the fact that Crawford worked for GMI and that he writes comments about a think-tank that fits GMI to the letter, but even then, the Chronicle article shows that original research is not necessary. Cazort (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Name
How exactly did a conservative Republican think tank come to be named after a liberal Democrat anyway? 75.76.213.106 (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, but I've observed that the founder chairman Frederick Seitz was married to the former Elizabeth K. Marshall. Could be coincidence; I've no evidence there's any connection. Someone with access to Seitz' autobiography could probably clarify if there's any link. Rd232 talk 16:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Rv: why
I don't see any clear reason why we care what the author of the Newsweek article was called William M. Connolley (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Merchants of Doubt
The reference to Merchants of Doubt in the lede presumes that the book is accurate. That presumption is inappropriate in an article about living persons (the directors). We either must specify that the assertion on motives is the authors' opinion (or even conclusion), or leave it out. The body says "conclusion". And why is Merchants of Doubt considered more notable than Requiem for a Species? Although the word "opinion" was added by a banned user, it's better than a simple assertion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Since the regular editors on this article seem to prefer a bald statement to "opinion" (as in the preceding sentence) or "conclusion" as in the body, I've removed it entirely from the lede. In Merchants of Doubt, the authors conclude ..." seems adequate.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Accusations of bias
We need broader coverage the funding issue. The way the article reads now, it seems Wikipedia is endorsing the view that this think tank is:
 * 1) political biased on the global warming issue
 * 2) taking money from Big Oil to promote a biased viewpoint on GW.

Rather than endorsing the view that GCM is biased, we should present both sides of the controversy. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope, we give due weight to the clear scientific view on the topic, and describe this think tank's input as promoting a fringe view with fossil fuel funding. . dave souza, talk 14:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that there are some format changes necessary to make the article. The lead section should provide a clear description of the subject and should include the fact that controversy exists, but it is not the place for specific quotes from critics. Morever, it is rather silly sounding for criticism to be injected before even the most basic description of the subject is presented.
 * example: Since the late 1980s, the Institute has put forward environmental skepticism views, and in particular has disputed mainstream scientific opinion on climate change, although it continues to be active on defense policy. The George C. Marshall Institute has been described by Newsweek as a "central cog in the denialmachine."[2] The institute is named after the World War II military leader and statesman George C. Marshall.
 * Obviously the natural flow of the article is hindered by the critical information that belongs in the article but not ahead of such basic information as for whom the institute is named. I suggest cleaning up the lead section, putting criticisms in their proper place throughout the article, and summing up the contentious positions in a sentence near the end of the lead. Mrathel (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I've tagged the "Global warming" section as being almost completely one-sided. Needs a NPOV rewrite. --Pete Tillman (talk) 07:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You mean it gives far too much credence to the institute's fringe views? Rather than this vague tagging, please be more specific and propose improvements. . dave souza, talk 07:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * See Responding to Oreskes and Conway’s Merchants of Doubt for GMI's rebuttal. --Pete Tillman (talk) 07:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You seem to be pointing to a primary fringe source disputing a reputable mainstream assessment. So what? . . dave souza, talk 15:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Um, Dave: you really don't think we should mention that GMI disputes Oreske's allegations, on the GMI wikipage? Could there be a balance problem here? --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Pete, you seem to think that Wikipedia is Fox News – see WP:WEIGHT policy. . . dave souza, talk 21:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Citing the Marshall institute's disagreement and their response to Oreskes and Conway is all that is needed here. In comparison to the mountain of evidence given by Oreskes, GMI's response document is rather weak and hand-wavy; amounting to little more than a press release. Wikipedia is based on evidence and in this respect there is no "balance problem" in this article. -- Sjschen (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comments from other editors on the topic above would be welcome. TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It is an obviously biased neoliberal think tank.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 01:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Conservative vs Neo-liberal (or both)
We have long had the descriptor "conservative" in the lede, ref'd to the Boston Globe. Today it was replaced by "neo-liberal" ref'd to an academic press book. Which should be the descriptor? Or should both be mentioned as in : "The institute has been described as conservative and as neo-liberal." I suggest using both. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Then I suggest you find academic sources on a parity with the source I added, and we discuss what they mean, and how to include both, if that is merited.
 * "Neoliberal" is obviously a more specific and informative term for the reader, as it narrows down the scope of the more general term "conservative".-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 23:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "Informative"? I am a fairly well-read and active editor. I couldn't give you a simple and widely agreed upon definition of "neo-liberal" right now. I guess I can and will go do some reading up on the term. I think we do a disservice to general readers by using uncommonly used terms from academic sources exclusively. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Here are a couple of sources to look at, for example. The term generally implies a anti-regulatory, non-governmental intervention in markets, supply-side economics, etc. They are not conservatives of the Theodore Roosevelt sort.


 * 1) Climate Change: An Encyclopedia of Science and History
 * 2) Defining Sustainable Development for Our Common Future: A History of the ...
 * -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 00:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The fact that our article on neoliberalism starts out with "Neoliberalism is a term whose usage and definition have changed over time" seems unhelpful. I agree with Capitalismojo that the term "conservative" is more widely understood than "neoliberalism." And here are a couple of academic books describing the George C. Marshall Institute as "conservative:" Postmodern Climate Change (published by Routledge), Behind the Curve: Science and the Politics of Global Warming (published by the University of Washington) , The Discovery of Global Warming published by Harvard . That is just from the first page of Google book results. The New York Times also typically refers to the group as "conservative:" . Safehaven86 (talk) 02:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The Pelerin book was also published by Harvard, and your personal opinion about the "more widely understood" doesn't address the fact that it is less specific and obscures the reasons why Harvard also publishes books where it is called "neoliberal". I posted the two links above that use "conservative" and also discuss climate change denial and anti-regulatory aims of the institute that are typical of neoliberalism.
 * So the question is how to present both in the lead. I intend to incorporate the environment and climate change related information as well, later.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 04:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This label has been discussed and rejected by other editors at related articles. There was widespread agreement that this term was WP:JARGON. Editors felt this was not helpful to the reader. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Read WP:ADVOCACY and WP:ACTIVIST, and comment based on sources, not innuendo.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 20:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand that last comment. Your use of this term was roundly rejected at other pages by other editors as JARGON. Are you suggesting they are advocates? Capitalismojo (talk) 02:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You are misrepresenting the threaded discussion about the term. The term clearly was not "excessively overlinked", and is not "jargon" in the sense asserted by a single editor.
 * It is not a "label" in the sense you are implying, just like "neoconservative" isn't.
 * If you can't abide by WP:NPOV and edit according to the sources, there are forums to address conduct issues.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 03:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Use of video of a speech by Oreskes for a cite?
I've moved this bit out of the "Accusations of COI" section for discussion:


 * Naomi Oreskes states that the institute has, in order to resist and delay regulation, lobbied politically to create a false public perception of scientific uncertainty over the negative effects of second-hand smoke, the carcinogenic nature of tobacco smoking, the existence of acid rain, and on the evidence between CFCs and ozone depletion. Cited to

First, the item has no apparent relation to COI. Second, I question the use of a video for these accusations. This is a primary source, and places a considerable burden on any reader seeking to verify the allegations. My recollection is, this is all ground covered in Oreskes & Conway's "Merchants of Doubt", and better cited to there, if we need it for somewhere else. --Pete Tillman (talk) 21:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You have a weird definition of "primary". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems it is about COI as they were lobbying at the behest of their money sources to delay action. I'm not fond of youtube sources, but this seems OK - if you prefer to use "Merchants of Doubt" as a source that would be fine. The material removed should be restored. Vsmith (talk) 23:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The source does seem to meet RS, so there shouldn't be a problem. The general POV itself is well-sourced, such as the following (minus tobacco).
 * According to Iris Borowy"Corporations and conservatie think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation, Marshall Institute, the Cato Institute and the American Enterprise Institute waged campaigns to obscure scientific evidence about acid rain, ozone depletion and climate change and, thereby, to prevent or rollback environmental, health and safety regulations."


 * Well I guess we could double-cite it, as Vsmith suggested. It would be good to have a RS say the COI bit. Maybe just move it to the rest of the Oreskes stuff? She really, really doesn't like the GMI founders....


 * And we need to let GMI rebut her, for NPOV. Link upthread to a long pdf, but too late for today. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 05:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, no, we don't need to use primary, self-serving sources to "balance" academic experts. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on George C. Marshall Institute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050306200803/http://www.environmentaldefense.org:80/article.cfm?contentid=3804&CFID=21084385&CFTOKEN=29888831 to http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?contentid=3804&CFID=31736260&CFTOKEN=40110786
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060504050625/http://www.mediatransparency.org:80/recipientgrants.php?recipientID=137 to http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientgrants.php?recipientID=137

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George C. Marshall Institute. 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/20130116214043/http://www.claremont.org/publications/precepts/id.70/precept_detail.asp to http://www.claremont.org/publications/precepts/id.70/precept_detail.asp

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) 19:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George C. Marshall Institute. 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/20100706081937/http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=21 to http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=21

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) 11:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)