Talk:Sierra Club

Criticism

Why is there no criticism section? The Sierra Club is routinely criticized by lots of people, including many who use public lands for recreation.Marshaul (talk) 06:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, why is all of the actual history of Corporate subversion of the Sierra Club not even mentioned? The Sierra Club today is nothing like what it used to be, now it's a right wing Corporate front, its leaders are Republican shills and they have some rather extensive finanical questions that they should answer to one-time members for, none of which is covered here. NotSoOldHippy (talk) 02:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Do not confuse The Sierra Club with The Sierra Club Trust. The one with the small annual budget is relatively transparent and has relatively high ratings with charity evaluation sites. The one with the enormous funding is relatively opaque. The Trust successfully avoids the poor- or non-ratings.

There is certainly internal and external criticism along the lines you mention (for the most part, at least -- I don't think I've heard "Republican shills" about an organization that endorses mostly Democrats). The problem is finding coverage of that criticism. I could add some information based on my personal knowledge but that wouldn't meet the verifiability standard. JamesMLane t c 10:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Although criticism sections are not banned on Wikipedia, many editors consider them problematic. Here's a quote from an essay found at WP: criticism sections:

"Separating all the controversial aspects of a topic into a single section results in a very tortured form of writing, especially a back-and-forth dialogue between 'proponents' and 'opponents'. It also creates a hierarchy of fact — the main passage is 'true' and 'undisputed', whereas the rest are 'controversial' and therefore more likely to be false, an implication that may often be inappropriate. Since many of the topics in an encyclopedia will inevitably encounter controversy, editors should attempt to write in a manner that folds debates into the narrative rather than 'distilling' them out into separate sections that ignore each other."

Funny how any wiki entry that falls in line with the liberal/progressive agenda doesn't need a "criticism" section, but anything outside the agenda should. The bias here is evident. --Hamsterjoeb (talk) 14:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

As for the substance of NotSoOldHippy's allegations about the Sierra Club, I think that Republican influence in the Club in the early decades was far more prevalent than of late. William Kent who helped create Muir Woods was a Republican, for example. I recently wrote a bio of Norman Livermore, a Republican who was active in the club from the 30s to the 60s, who played a very constructive role on balance, in my opinion. If NotSoOldHippy can come up with some reliable sources that back his/her point, and write up the material from the neutral point of view, then I wouldn't object. Disclosure - I am a Democrat and a Sierra Club member since 1976. Cullen328 (talk) 00:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Is the sierra club foundation another way that they can divert the public from unwanted attention to financial activity? 73.12.149.250 (talk) 00:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

These comments should be included in the Sierra Club Foundation talk. 73.12.149.250 (talk) 00:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

It's a huge disservice to students not to mention that Sierra Club essentially made global warming worse by getting NRC to destroy any hope of getting away from coal on a reasonable timeframe.205.185.116.30 (talk) 06:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I second the contention that the Sierra Club is demonstrably anti-development and NIMBY. A 2026 study found the it was responsible for 14% of filings under NEPA laws. It doesn't want good affordable new housing. It doesn't want any sort of development that might affect the status quo, unless that is, it is to tear down what man has built and replace it with "nature". The lead claims it has lobbied for policies to mitigate global warming. True. But why isn't the FACT that it has lobbied for policies that would increase global warming also mentioned there? The best description I know of for it is anti-human development.~2026-92463-4 (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

NPOV

The previous version singled out one among many Sierra Club policies (restore Hetch Hetchy) and mentioned one of the reasons to oppose that policy (San Francisco need for drinking water). My reaction as a first-time visitor was that it violated NPOV. I expanded the discussion of the policy to show that SC isn't indifferent to SF drinking water. Reference to dams "in California" deleted because SC has opposed dams across the country. I also added a sentence re SC governance. JamesMLane 21:34, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

History

Should the article mention the Sierra Club's loss of its tax exempt status for engaging in political activity in 1966? --Blackeagle 17:34, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Certainly. The article should have more history material. Cheers, -Willmcw 03:57, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Removing a Google Drive link to a PDF as a source

Right now, Sierra_Club#Ramona_Strategies_Report links to a Google Drive-hosted PDF that purports to be a copy of the original Ramona Strategies report. Of course, this is not acceptable as a source. The URL includes the string "?usp=embed_facebook", where "usp" stands for "URL source parameter", meaning this Google Drive link was sourced from a Facebook post.

In any case, I cannot find any provenance to demonstrate the authenticity of this document. The only other copy I found online was a user-uploaded PDF on iww.org, but user-generated content is not acceptable as a source either. As such, I have removed this source entirely. I am making this topic so that folks can chime in if they have a better source for this document, which I failed to find. NeuroJasper (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2026 (UTC)