Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Passive smoking

This mediation is closed. One or more parties have withdrawn their assent to meditation. Progress was made, but some issues were unresolved. 23:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vassyana (talk • contribs)

• /Premediation discussion
• /mediator and venue
• /starting points
• /archive 001

Reminders

• Keep the discussion polite and respectful.
• Refrain from snarky or sarcastic comments.
• Provide direct and polite answers to questions.
• Avoid tangents and other non-relevant topics.
• Maintain a cooperative and cordial attitude.

Working conditions

• Please stay focused on the draft work.
• Avoid debating the subject.

This is not the place to revisit debates and make arguments about the topic. If there is dispute about what a source says, that is appropriate for discussion. If the dispute revolves around disagreeing with how other sources have interpreted that reference, that is not appropriate for discussion. We need to report what reliable references state, in proportion to their appearance in the whole body of reliable sources. We should be doing nothing more or less.

• Comment on the content, not the contributors.

Comments about other contributors distract from the appropriate discussion and will only raise hackles, instead of finding a resolution.

• Please ensure claims are verifiable in reliable references.
• Make sure to adhere to a balance according to available reliable references.
• Please double-check claims against reliable sources, so original research is avoided.

It is imperative that any resulting draft adheres to the core content policies and the intimately related guideline. These are fundamental principles about how articles, and sections thereof, should be written and sourced. Each draft writer should be able to articulate how their proposal adheres to these rules and is an improvement over the pre-mediation version (according to the rules).

Comments about other contributors and topic debates will be removed from the discussion. Stay focused on the work at hand. Vassyana 19:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Touching base

How are things going with the drafts? Vassyana 17:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Slowly. :) MastCell ^Talk 17:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll go ahead and put my draft out there for review: it's at User:MastCell/Passive smoking draft. MastCell ^Talk 22:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with this draft. It covers all the main points and makes the role of the tobacco industry clear. Readers can make up their own minds on whether to discount information because of the source.JQ 10:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this draft, I was speechless last night; I am not much improved this morning. Chido6d 11:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

OK... would you like to elaborate? MastCell ^Talk 16:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Not at this time. I do have a couple of questions for you:

• How, specifically, do you feel the draft is an improvement over the current article?
• Can you describe elements of your draft that are borne out of the spirit of compromise? What have you done in this draft that you feel may move all parties who are involved in the dispute closer together? Chido6d 03:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The draft is, hopefully, an improvement in that it is better organized, less redundant, more carefully sourced, and more compliant with WP:WEIGHT than the current rather haphazard section of the article. It's most important to have a version that fulfills Wikipedia's policies on undue weight, original synthesis, verifiability, etc rather than one designed primarily to satisfy the rather small selection of editors we have here. The issue is that we have an (approximately) 4 to 2 split in terms of how we view the issue, but the representation of these viewpoints among experts in the field is far more lopsided (as verified by the sources I've provided in my draft). So a version that compromises based solely on the POV's of current editors will likely end up violating WP:WEIGHT. That said, are there specific issues with the draft which you feel violate WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, or other Wikipedia policies? MastCell ^Talk 17:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

By no means am I suggesting (nor would I) that compromises be based on the POV of editors involved. I guess a better question would be: to what extent do you believe that the concerns brought by those involved are valid, and how does your draft address those concerns? Chido6d 23:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been participating much lately. I've had limited WP time lately—enough to do some minor stuff (see my edit history)—but not enough to devote to this more time consuming effort until last night/today. See my comments below. I have not completed a draft of my own, and at this point I probably won't. I endorse MastCell's, and I don't think that anything I would crank out could improve upon it. I do however, have a proposal for juggling around some of the other sections. Check it out here. I guess that's not really the subject of this mediation, so if you feel like commenting on it, I guess Talk:Passive_smoking would be the more appropriate place. An additional FYI: I'm leaving on vacation tomorrow for 8 days, and may not have much or any internet access while away. So if you don't hear from me, that's why. Yilloslime 19:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Draft for review (1)

MastCell (talk · contribs) has completed a draft proposal: User:MastCell/Passive smoking draft. Let's review and discuss that draft. Vassyana 20:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Please be specific, concise and polite in your responses.

• What are the overall strengths and weaknesses of the draft?
• How well does the draft comply with Wikipedia practice and policy?
• How well are the available sources represented, both in a commonly sensible manner and according to WP:UNDUE?

MastCell has done an excellent job at documenting the current state of knowledge concerning the so called "passive smoking controversy", which, as he indeed points out, is no longer a genuine controversy, since all authoritative scientific bodies, worldwide, consider the case now well settled - even if scientists will continue to debate about the exact risk ratios for specific diseases (which is perfectly normal). MastCell has taken great care (and I'm impressed) of backing each and every statement he makes in his draft with reliable and authoritative sources, and in full compliance of Wikipedia policy. I would suggest two minor improvements: 1) remove quotation boxes, and use the blockquote tag instead, since these boxes emphasize the quotations more than is necessary; 2) remove Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds from the list of "major medical and scientific organizations" :-) ! My major problem with the draft proposed by MastCell (this applies also to the draft proposed by Chido6d) is that it does not remedy one major problem with the current version: length and undue weight in the context of the article. Including this draft in the article would make the "controversy section" occupy over a third and close to a half of the space dedicated to Passive smoking. Clearly, a "controversy" which is indicated as being artifically sustained by the tobacco industry does not need to be treated in such length in the context of the main article. This is why I'd strongly support creating a separate page for the "controversy". MastCell's draft would be an excellent initial version of such a separate article.

--Dessources 11:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This above being said, it does not mean that I do not have reservations concerning MastCell's draft - it is perfectible, as is any Wikipedia article. Take for example the lead sentence of the subsection Critique of Confidence Intervals and Reasoning: "Gio Batta Gori, a former deputy director of the National Cancer Institute who more recently did consulting work for the tobacco industry." This is misleading, at best. In fact, Gori left NCI in 1980, i.e. 27 years ago. He started doing consulting work for the tobacco industry (namely Brown & Williamson) in 1980. In other words, he has spent most of his career at the service of the tobacco industry. His consulting work for the tobacco industry can hardly be said to be "recent". He is what could be rightly called a long-time tobacco industry consultant.

In passing, I also find that undue place is given to Gori's pamphlet published in Regulation. This paper does not meet Wikipedia requirement for reliable sources: it is a hodge-podge of fallacious arguments.

--Dessources 11:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it may make more sense to replace the Regulation reference with a ref to Gori's recent op-ed in the Washington Post. He made many of the same arguments (more briefly and more in layman's terms), and the source is a bit more non-partisan and mainstream (though as an op-ed, obviously, it expresses the author's opinion rather than fact). As to WP:WEIGHT of the whole section, I'm of two minds - I suppose there's enough there to split off a separate "controversy" article. While the "controversy" currently has little remaining traction, as demonstrated by the sources I've provided, it was a historically very relevant issue related to passive smoking. Finally, PM and RJR tobacco are of course not scientific bodies, but nonetheless it seems relevant that even these tobacco companies have signed on to the scientific consensus. Of course, since their private documents confirming their awareness of the harms of passive smoking have been made public, they probably have little choice but to admit it. MastCell ^Talk 18:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually neither Philip Morris nor RJ Reynolds are near to admitting the evidence that secondhand smoke causes serious diseases. The statements on their websites are carefully worded so that they avoid stating their own position, and only refer to what public health authorities state. To see the true position of the companies, beyond the public relations hype which is on their websites, you have to dig into their official declarations under oath before US courts. A good authoritative reference which provides information on the truly official position of the tobacco industry on several health subjects is a report by the U.S. House of Representatives entitled "Tobacco Industry Statements in the Department of Justice Lawsuit" (dated September 2002 - see Legacy Tobacco Document bxk93a00). Here is an extract from this report (pp. 7-8):

Five of Five Tobacco Companies Deny Environmental Tobacco Smoke Causes Disease

Leading scientific and medical organizations have concluded that breathing environmental tobacco smoke causes serious disease in nonsmokers, killing thousands of Americans each year. The findings of these expert organizations, which include the U.S. Surgeon General, the World Health Organization, the National Institutes of Health, the American Medical Association, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, and the American Cancer Society, are summarized in the Addendum. Most recently, on June 19, 2002, after an expert review of thousands of scientific studies, the International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded that "the typical levels of passive exposure have been shown to cause lung cancer among never smokers." Despite this medical consensus, when asked to "describe your position with respect to whether environmental tobacco smoke ('ETS') causes disease" and "[a]dmit that environmental tobacco smoke ('ETS') causes disease in some people," not one of the five tobacco companies took the position that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke causes, contributes to, or even is a risk factor for disease: Philip Morris maintained that "environmental tobacco smoke ('ETS') has not been shown to cause the development of disease ." The company responded that "ETS exposure has not been shown to cause the development of lung cancer or heart disease in nonsmokers." [...] R.J. Reynolds responded that the company "does not believe that the scientific evidence concerning ETS establishes it as a cause of, or a risk factor for, lung cancer, heart disease, or any other disease in adult nonsmokers.

Of course, some may observe that this was in 2002, and that we are now in 2007, and perhaps the industry has changed its position in the mean time and now accepts the scientific consensus. But if this were the case, we would know, and such a change of position would have not passed unnoticed, but rather would have made the headlines of major newspapers. Nothing of that kind has happened, to my knowledge. It is interesting to compare the statement made by Philip Morris on their website ([1]]) on the health effects of active smoking (the "primary" issue) and on secondhand smoke (the "secondary" issue):

Active smoking	Passive smoking
Cigarette Smoking and Disease in Smokers Philip Morris USA agrees with the overwhelming medical and scientific consensus that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema and other serious diseases in smokers. Smokers are far more likely to develop serious diseases, like lung cancer, than non-smokers. There is no safe cigarette.	Secondhand Smoke Public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke from cigarettes causes disease, including lung cancer and heart disease, in non-smoking adults, as well as causes conditions in children such as asthma, respiratory infections, cough, wheeze, otitis media (middle ear infection) and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome.

Notable is the absence in the statement on secondhand smoke of the phrase "Philip Morris agrees with the overwhelming medical and scientific consensus that"...

--Dessources 22:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you're saying. In that case, maybe I should go ahead and remove PM and RJR from the list of organizations which accept the relationship between passive smoking and health problems. MastCell ^Talk 23:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Generally this draft is good. I agree with Dessources regarding Gori. His correct description is "tobacco industry consultant". Assuming we don't create a fork, I'd suggest that the weight issue could be addressed in part by reducing Enstrom and Kabat to a few sentences (the first para and the sentence following covers everything that's really needed).JQ 01:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Enstrom/Kabat section is lacking. I seriously question why the controversy surrounding its inclusion in the BMJ is omitted. Is this because Editor Smith's comments in response are bothersome?

Furthermore, the study found an insignificant link between ETS and COPD. Davey Smith juggled the numbers to establish such a link (see source).

Dr. Enstrom is also misquoted in reference to his letter to PM. Why? Do tell. Chido6d 06:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with adding a sentence on Richard Smith's quote about the study, if you feel it's important. I don't find it bothersome. As to the "insignificant" link, Enstrom and Kabat were very properly called on that in the editorial. Enstrom chose to analyze the risk for men and for women separately, yielding 2 insignificant hazard ratios. This makes absolutely no sense, as gender doesn't have any biologically plausible impact on the risk for COPD. If all patients, male and female, were analyzed as a group, the risk was significant. "Juggling the numbers" indeed. As to misquoting, I cut-and-pasted that quote, I believe. Could you be more specific about where I've misquoted him? MastCell ^Talk 04:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I've taken so long to respond. Anyways, I really like this draft--there's room for improvement (mostly word-smithing)--but think it's a great start. Of the three (the other's being Chido's and JQ's) this is my favorite. I agree with what has been said about quote boxes, PM's and RJR's postion on ETS, and how to describe Gori, but these minor, relatively easy changes to make. It's long, but I do think it successfully avoids running afoul of WP:WEIGHT. We had been disputing how much WP:WEIGHT to give Gori, Enstrom & Kabat, etc., relative to the WHO, SG, IARC, etc. With this draft, since these folks are discussed entirely within the context of the tobacco industry's efforts to subvert the scientific consensus/tobacco regulation, I see less of a problem. I guess there is still the question of how much article space to dedicate to disccussing the tobacco's industry's efforts, but I would argue that it's an interesting and important aspect of the history of ETS science and policy, and should be given amply space. In other words, I believe previously the WP:WEIGHT issue revolved around Gori, Enstrom & Kabat, Olsteen, etc. vs the WHO, SG, IARC, etc. With this draft, weight issue--if there is one at all--is about documenting tobacco industry subversion vs documenting other aspects of passive smoking history, epidemiology, policy, etc. I am still against spinning off a separate article on this topic. Yilloslime 18:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I just find it surprising that the controversy surrounding the Enstrom/Kabat publication in the BMJ in particular is not mentioned, with the volume of Rapid Responses received and the answers to the same by the Editor and Associate Editor.

Don't you think that the Davey Smith issue deserves disclosure such as: "The study results yielded an insignificant increase in risk of COPD. Later, Davey Smith performed an analysis which combined the male and female groups, and reached a different conclusion."

Chido6d 23:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: I have revised my draft in response to some of the issues raised here and below. MastCell ^Talk 18:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Draft for review (2)

Chido6d (talk · contribs) has completed a draft proposal: Talk:Passive smoking/Controversy draft. Let's review and discuss that draft. Vassyana 03:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Please be specific, concise and polite in your responses.

• What are the overall strengths and weaknesses of the draft?
• How well does the draft comply with Wikipedia practice and policy?
• How well are the available sources represented, both in a commonly sensible manner and according to WP:UNDUE?

Comment: I think this draft is an improvement over the current article in that it's better organized and more readable. My biggest concern with it has to do with WP:WEIGHT: my sense is that it suggests a somewhat active scientific debate with a "majority" and "minority" side, when the sources do not support the continued existence of such a debate. I'm of 2 minds about the amount of attention given the Enstrom/Kabat study. It's clearly out of proportion to the weight assigned it by the scientific community, but on the other hand it did stir up a bit of discussion. However, if we mention the Enstrom/Kabat study, then we are obligated to discuss the study's design and promotion by the tobacco industry, including the fact that Enstrom's stated goal before conducting the study was to "effectively compete against the large mountain of epidemiologic data and opinion that already exists regarding the health effects of ETS." This was highlighted in the District Court decision and other reliable sources and deserves mention if we are to focus on this particular study. I also prefer listing the organizations that represent scientific consensus on passive smoking (with links to their position statements), as I've done in my draft, rather than just referring repeatedly to a "majority". I think this is both more informative and more in line with the injunction from WP:RS that claims of consensus require particularly meticulous sourcing. MastCell ^Talk 17:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I agree with MastCell. This draft puts too much emphasis on the raw facts, as they appeared at the time, and suggests that these are still being debated. The reliable sources which we have today allow for a different perspective, which clearly show that these raw facts were in fact elements of a vast conspiracy by the tobacco industry to undermine the science of secondhand smoke.

[This draft] is highly biased towards exonerating the tobacco industry of any wrongdoing or presenting what they did in a language that waters it down, making it appear almost as normal business conduct. This permeates every paragraph of the draft, but I will use just one characteristic passage to illustrate my point.

The draft ends the section on the "World Health Organization Report Controversy" with the following paragraph:

It was later reported that Philip Morris, British American Tobacco (BAT), and other tobacco companies monitored the study while it was in progress, and had planned to discredit any findings which may have harmed their economic interests -- particularly the prospect of increased smoking restrictions in Europe. It was also alleged that BAT fueled the story by issuing press releases.

In the first sentence, the verb monitored is an extraordinary euphemism and does not correspond to the way the action is described in the sources. For example, the WHO inquiry report states: "tobacco companies have operated for many years with the deliberate purpose of subverting the efforts of the World Health Organization (WHO) to control tobacco use. The attempted subversion has been elaborate, well financed, sophisticated, and usually invisible." There is a world of difference between "subverting" and "monitoring". For example, "in December 2001 Swedish evening paper Aftonbladet reported that professor John Wahren at the Karolinska Institute, also a member of the Karolinska Institute Nobel Committee, had accepted more than 1.4 million SEK during the 1990's as remuneration for reporting about the doings of a colleague in the same corridor at the institute."[2] [3] The money came from Philip Morris and this colleague, Göran Pershagen, was an investigator in the WHO/IARC study. Bribing somebody to spy on a colleague does not reconcile with the word "monitoring".

In the same sentence, it is said that the tobacco companies "had planned to discredit any findings which may have harmed their economic interest." Reading the sources at hand, one see clearly that this was more than a plan, but that actions were taken to discredit the WHO findings, actions which still manifest their effects today. Indeed, as is shown in the WHO report, the industry has secretly devised and supported apparent independent "counfounder" studies (among others) aimed at "mitigating" the result of the WHO/IARC study. These studies did not remain at the planning stage, they were carried out and their results published, and they now pollute the scientific litterature. One such study is the American confounder study undertaken by Genevieve Matanoski using NHANES data, which has served as model for a number of offshoot confounder studies in Europe (see [4]). These studies lead to publications in various medical journals. The fraudulent nature of these studies has been established and is well documented. Chido6d's version could be taken as implying that the tobacco industry plans remained at the level of intentions. This, again, does not do full justice to what really happened, but rather present a distorted view of that reality.

"It was also alleged that BAT fueled the story by issuing press releases." This is again a distorsion of the facts as they are known today. An allegation means a claim not supported by proof. In the case at hand, the fact that BAT took the lead to engineer the press coverage of the pre-announcement of WHO/IARC results is well documented, with solid proofs. There are copies of the emails, letters and reports that show in the minute detail how BAT engineered the whole thing. So to say that it is "alleged that BAT fueled the story" is an attempt to waterdown the case, hinting that this "allegation" may be unfounded. This interpretation does not reconcile with what we currently know about the case, and with the evidence which is well documented in reliable and authoritative sources.

Unfortunately, very similar remarks apply to the whole draft proposed by Chido6d, and it would be tedious to examine each sentence in the way I have analyzed the above paragraph, but the same conclusions could be drawn on most parts of his draft. Although I realize that there is a need to be positive and assume good faith, I nevetheless consider this version unacceptable.

--Dessources 11:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It has been said that my draft puts "too much emphasis on the raw facts", and I will wear that remark as a badge of honor. So, thank you for that. This is consistent with previous allegations of my tendency to allow readers to make up their own minds.

With the limited time that I have, I will gladly respond to some of your other comments.

I stand by my wording about the tobacco industry monitoring of the IARC study, because that is exactly what they did. You have offered no evidence to the contrary; industry efforts to subvert tobacco control efforts by the WHO does not equal interference with this study.

Likewise, the tobacco companies had indeed planned to discredit any findings that may have been perceived as unfavorable to them. It turns out they did not have to do so in this particular case. The jubilance exhibited (by BAT in particular) when the results of the study were finally made known is very telling. What, exactly, did the tobacco industry do to discredit the findings of this report? They embraced the findings.

I did incorporate one suggestion. My sentence structure was a bit backwards in reference to BAT issuing press releases. I did not intend to imply that this was a mere allegation.

I'll have more later about the challenges at the heart of this project, "allowing for a different perspective", claiming to have all the "facts", and other related matters. Chido6d 02:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Please - Dessources' remark was that your draft put too much emphasis on the facts as they appeared at the time rather than presenting them in the context of the information available today. His meaning was clear and reflects a criticism many of us have had regarding your edits. Taking his remark out of context doesn't really get us anywhere. Regarding "monitoring" vs. "subverting" - contrary to your comment, there is actually voluminous evidence cited as to the tobacco industry's efforts to interfere with or subvert this study. I would refer you to the unsubtly titled article from Lancet: "Tobacco industry efforts subverting International Agency for Research on Cancer's second-hand smoke study" (PMID 10770318), or the independent inquiry commissioned by the WHO. MastCell ^Talk 04:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

His meaning is clear.

I'm not going to wither under criticism for stating what is.

It's pretty useless to direct me toward such sources as the WHO and Stanton Glantz. I thought you knew this. Chido6d 06:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Given the remark above, I see little point in persevering here. JQ 09:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with JQ. With this last remark of Chido6d, we are at the crux of what divides us. --Dessources 09:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The chasm is alluded to above, but in my view the problem is this: there is a desire to portray the beliefs, claims and statements of certain sources as facts (rather than a consensus or majority view), while any other view is either corrupt or downright naive.

Here are some examples. Dessources said that it is a fact that the WHO did not suppress their 1998 report. It is not a fact; it is a claim. It also seems that Gladys Kessler's opinion holds quite a bit of weight with some people, which is fine. But her findings are her interpretation of the evidence; they do not constitute facts. Here's another: the former SG said that the "debate is over" (note: said).

BMJ Editor Richard Smith said (in response to the Enstrom/Kabat debate), "Scientific truths are all provisional." Chido6d 15:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Your comment that it's a waste of time to cite the WHO or Glantz to you makes me wonder, as User:John Quiggin said, whether there's any hope of making progress here. Obviously you are welcome to decide for yourself how much weight to attach to those sources in your own evaluation. However, the goal here is not to convince you of the harms of passive smoking. It's to decide how Wikipedia handles these sources. You said "subverting" was an inapproriate word; I provided reliable sources supporting the use of this word; and you said it was a waste of time to cite such sources to you. That doesn't seem like it leaves a lot of room to make progress. MastCell ^Talk 00:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

As for Glantz, and subverting, it would be accurate to say that Drs. Ong and Glantz described these efforts as "subverting"...or something to that effect. Why doesn't anyone seem to get it?

While you're at it, why not answer some of my questions on your draft? Chido6d 02:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not just the one Lancet article claiming there was an effort to subvert the study - it's also the independent inquiry commissioned by the WHO, as well as Kessler's judicial decision, and all of these reliable secondary sources are backed by primary sources. It's verifiable. Trying to isolate this as the opinion of one person, whom is then vilified as an anti-smoking "zealot", is not accurate. MastCell ^Talk 04:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This version is definitely an improvement over what's currently in the article, but I prefer MastCell's. In general I agree with others have said here and here. Yilloslime 18:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I've made a few light to moderate revisions to my draft in light of other editors concerns (probably enough for reevaluation). Addressing some of the changes and comments:

• The term "majority" has been eradicated, as certain editors felt that this was understating the current context of the issue.
• The term "subverting" is now employed, since this is of some importance (for whatever reason).
• The word "monitored" is still there -- but is fairly expounded as part of a "strategy" (which replaced the word 'plan') to subvert the WHO's efforts toward tobacco control.
• Some of the section headings were revised.
• A few other minor changes were made.

I'm concerned about vague statements such as "suggesting an active debate". As I have shown, I do appreciate specific suggestions and constructive criticism. Chido6d 19:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Draft for review (3)

John Quiggin (talk · contribs) has completed a draft proposal: User:John Quiggin/Passive smoking draft. Let's review and discuss that draft. Vassyana 18:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Please be specific, concise and polite in your responses.

• What are the overall strengths and weaknesses of the draft?
• How well does the draft comply with Wikipedia practice and policy?
• How well are the available sources represented, both in a commonly sensible manner and according to WP:UNDUE?

I've put up my own draft at User:John Quiggin/Passive smoking draft. (1) I've attempted to address the WP:WEIGHT issue by shortening the E&K section and merging it into the opening "Individual studies" section. I deleted the Brady stuff as it seemed to be just more of the same. Finally, I thought the material on "state of the controversy" would be better placed in the main body of the article. (2) Since all the studies listed were funded by the tobacco industry, I've spelt that out. I propose merging the entire section into "Tobacco industry response", and have titled my draft accordingly. It's a pity that the original authors of these studies didn't spell out their funding sources, and that editors therefore included the material on the good faith assumption that this was independent research. If this had been done, I imagine most of our current controversy could have been avoided.JQ 07:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It's more concise, which I think is good, especially if we're keeping everything in one article rather than spinning off a "controversy" fork. I think this is a reasonable summary which complies with WP:WEIGHT; minor note - I again wonder if we should cite Gori's Washington Post op-ed rather than his Cato piece. I do think it's important to address the current state of the controversy, though it would be fine to do so in the main body of the article. MastCell ^Talk 14:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I like this too, but I prefer MastCell's. As I said above, I think that as long as the views of the tobacco funded dissenters are discussed within the context of the industry's attempt to subvert the consensus, then we don't run into problems with WP:WEIGHT. It's only when they are put on equal footing with the SG, WHO, etc that I see WP:WEIGHT problems. Having said that, I like the detail of MastCell's that this one lacks. I agree that incorporating the Current state of the controversy section into the main section of the article might be good. Yilloslime 18:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you guys are missing Chido and I's point on this. We do not object to the ETS evidence because of support or love of the tobacco industry. I myself have never met or knowingly been in contact with someone who works for the Tobacco industry or anyone who lobbies for the Tobacco industry.

Our objection is from the outside of the activist/industry dichotomy so obsessed with in the debate.

For example, the WHO report:

The WHO report states that there is a statistically significant reduction in risk for childhood exposure to ETS. Now that obviously filled industry lobbyists with glee, but what would motivate people like Chido and I to misconstrue that to somehow question the ETS hypothesis?

Because to the good folks at the Economist and other places it would appear that this evidence is very serious. Something doesn't quite match when children get a reduced risk from cancer with ETS and adults an insignificant increase.

Does this mean that early exposure yields immunity like chicken pox?

This kind of questioning is not a product of being a Tobacco industry lobbyist but simply being a person who employs critical thinking towards public evidence. You guys state over and over again the the only motivation for questioning the WHO report is a sickining love of the tobacco industry, but you miss the point that Chido and I object to the ETS hypothesis because the evidence speaks for itself. Mickeyklein 18:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

On another note, I have here a link with a quote by the Dean of Cornell's medical school:

"We don't have empirical evidence that secondhand smoke is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease," said Antonio Gotto, dean of WCMC"

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/March07/WCMC.smoke.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickeyklein (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm honestly not interested in speculating about your motivation, nor in debating specific sub-findings of a specific study in this venue. I think both (particularly the former) will inevitably be counter-productive. As to the source you suggest, the context is somewhat important: it states that about 30,000 people per year die of secondhand-smoke-related lung cancer, for example, in line with the scientific consensus. The more detailed study proposed in the article will be a very important contribution, and when its findings are published they could certainly be added to Wikipedia. The quote you've mined from the article merely suggests that some people would prefer stronger evidence of the link between passive smoking and cardiovascular disease. In fact, this area of debate is already covered in my draft, under "Current state of the controversy". I suppose this source could be added, though mining one half-sentence from a long article about the harms of secondhand smoke to make a completely contrary point seems to verge on WP:SYN. MastCell ^Talk 19:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see how you can call Gio Gori a "full-time tobacco industry consultant" with a source that is clearly way outdated. The list was made on a typewriter! I have pointed this out in the past to little avail. I see that MastCell made the correction (I think).

I also strongly feel that Judge Gladys Kessler's name should be mentioned. I've been reading her opinion...

I also observed that MastCell's draft is carbon-copied quite a bit.

I do agree wholeheartedly that the "Current State" section material could be incorporated into the main body.

Your efforts, though, are appreciated. Chido6d 00:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If it's important to you to mention Kessler's name, that's fine with me. MastCell ^Talk 16:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

For my part, I do not think it important nor necessary to mention Kessler's name. Gladys Kessler judged the case USA vs. Philip Morris not in her personal capacity, but in her role as judge of a US court. The decision is not her personal decision, but is a decision of a US court. Putting too much emphasis on her person and her name obfuscates the fact that the decision is a court decision, which commits the entire judiciary, not just one individual judge. The same reasonong applies to the US Surgeon General. Mentioning the US Surgeon General, in generic terms, is sufficient.

--Dessources 00:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I like John Quiggin's proposed draft, which has many of the qualities of MastCell's draft. However, the same remark applies to JQ's draft: although there is a perceptible attempt to make it shorter and more concise, the section is still a bit long. Furthermore, in the process of shortening it, some precision may have been lost at places. If I were to chose between the drafts, I would still favour MastCell's version, with the couple of changes I suggested.

--Dessources 23:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

How does merely mentioning Gladys Kessler's name put "too much emphasis on her person" and "obfuscate the fact that the decision is a court decision"? Please be specific with the answer.

Should Judge Osteen's name be removed as well? Chido6d 02:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Further drafts?

Is anyone else still working on a proposal draft? How are things coming? Vassyana 07:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not working on a proposald draft, as I am satisfied with MastCell's version, subject to a few changes.

--Dessources 08:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy enough with MastCell's version which seems to have most support.JQ 21:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll probably make some revisions - in fact, I liked some of JQ's organization better than mine and may plagiarize it. The major issue is still WP:WEIGHT - mine may be most appropriate for a spin-off article on the controversy, with a much briefer summary of the debate in the main passive smoking article. MastCell ^Talk 04:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I won't be preparing a draft of my own. I endorsed MastCell's draft eariler. Now that he's revised further I'll take another. Yilloslime 21:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Draft review

• Which draft reviewed so far do you think is best? Why?
• Which draft do you believe is most lacking? Why?
• What are the strongest points about each draft?
• What are the weakest points of each draft?

Please keep answers brief, to the point, focused on content and respectful. Vassyana 07:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Dessources's answers

• MastCell's draft is best. Each point is based on solid sources, and the text reflects accurately current knowledge about the subject. I would adopt it, subject to the few changes I proposed in my comment above.
• Chido6d's draft is most lacking (even considering his latest changes). It contains language which tends to waterdown the tobacco industry's wrongdoing, contrary to the overwhelming evidence which has accumulated and which is well documented in authoritative sources. It puts too much emphasis on the raw facts as they occurred at the time and tends to offer an original interpretation of these facts, and not the descriptions and explanations which are available today from reliable sources.
• All drafts are better organized than the current version. John Quiggin's draft is the shortest, and is best in terms of the WP:WEIGHT criterion.
• All drafts still give too much importance to the positions taken by unrepresentative people, such as Gio Gori, while thousands of scientists who have worked on the subject have made much more substantial contributions and would much more deserve to have their name in the article. For one "scientist" who challenges the mainstream views, there are more than 100 mainstream scientists. Adopting any one of the draft proposed means that over one third of the article will be dedicated to the dissenters' views. Hopefully, time will correct this undue weight problem.

--Dessources 09:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed Chido6d latest revision of his draft (as of the date indicated in my signature below). Clearly, Chido6d has tried to accommodate other editors concerns while preserving the essential of his approach. Unfortunately, the result does not gain in clarity, rather the reverse. There is overuse of quotations, at the detriment of a synthetic view of the subject. He digs up detailed fragments, which are quoted in raw form, but fails to provide a view of the whole subject. The abundance of details act as a smokescreen (if I may) which actually hides the whole. Furthermore, the excessive use of double quotes around words or expressions actually makes the text more ambiguous - a single word within quotes loses its dictionary meaning to take a new implied meaning, which, unfortunately, is rarely clear.

An example of a clear text is provided by MastCell: "A WHO inquiry, conducted after the release of the tobacco-industry documents, found that this controversy was generated by the tobacco industry as part of its larger campaign to cut the WHO's budget, distort the results of scientific studies on passive smoking, and discredit the WHO as an institution." This is non ambiguous, factual, and reflects faithfully the referenced sources (which are reliable as per Wikipedia criteria). On the same point, Chiod6d is much vaguer: "This was part of an overall effort toward what some sources called "subverting" the WHO's efforts to control tobacco use." In essence, Chiod6d phrasing takes a double distance with the source, giving the reader the feeling that the source is not trustable. First, he does not mention the source by its name, but say "some sources", while in the case at hand, the main source is clearly WHO and its inquiry by an international team of top level experts. Second, putting quotation marks around "subverting" may caution the reader to deduce that, although this is what the source said, it may be wrong. --Dessources 00:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Your analysis is misleading as you omitted the larger part of my statement. It reads thus: "It was later reported that Philip Morris, British American Tobacco (BAT), and other tobacco companies monitored the study while it was in progress as part of a strategy to discredit any findings which may have harmed their economic interests -- particularly the prospect of increased smoking restrictions in Europe. It was also reported that BAT helped to fuel the story by issuing press releases. This was part of an overall effort toward what some sources called "subverting" the WHO's efforts to control tobacco use." Ironically, the use of "some sources" (emphasis on the plural) was in response to a request by MastCell; he wanted it ro be clear that more than one source had made these charges.
• Since your criticism is empty and baseless (apart from your preference of style), does this mean that you now agree with the accuracy of the draft? Chido6d 23:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I did not expect that Chido6d would react to my comment so strongly - and I am sorry if he took my remark personally. My comment was about the text, not the person who produced it (How could I? I don't know him - or her). I meant to say that Chido6d's text fails to present a synthetic view. English not being my mother tongue, it may be that the expression I used did not make this entirely clear. This is why I have no problem rescinding the comment about the "lack of ability" and have done it, without any effect on the intended meaning of my sentence. The substance of my comment remains otherwise unchanged. --Dessources 23:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Your proficiency in the English language is impressive and commendable. I do suggest, however (with sincerity and not malice), that you consult with a language expert -- preferably one for whom English is the mother tongue -- about whether or not there is a hidden meaning to quotation marks. There is none. I use them often to show that I have not altered words or meaning. I also welcome an expert analysis from the same about the flow and grammar of my contribution. Chido6d 02:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the draft, I share some of Dessources' criticisms: scare quotes and overuse of "weasel words" ("Some sources...", "It was reported...") weaken the writing and inaccurately represent the content and quality of sources being cited. MastCell ^Talk 05:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

But, you see, they weren't scare quotes. I say that in the past tense because I have removed them. Scare quotes are most often used sarcastically; their purpose is fairly obvious even to the simple minded. There is no hidden meaning. Chido6d 11:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

To the reader, they will appear as scare quotes, as they look like scare quotes, and this is what counts, not the intention of the editor.

--Dessources 13:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you know what the reader will think (I lack the talent of clairvoyancy). But I did remove the scare quotes as well as the "weasel words". I think both charges were a stretch, and I admit to skepticism. I had attempted to encapsulate two sources within one expression of thought. This was not an attempt to distance the sources from the information, as there were/are so many sources named within the text already.

Nevertheless, yet another request granted. Chido6d 23:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

mickeyklein's answers

• Chido does the best job, the sources are well cited and their points presented with brevity.
• JQ's article is the most lacking as it frames the dissent as "Tobacco Industry Response", I would like at least the dignity of a recognition that opposition on this issue is not just for industry hacks. Mastcells draft, however qualified all over the place, at least presents the matter as a controversy.
• I agree with Desources that all these drafts are better than the original.
• Gori is one of many scientists with that view, he is just particularly eloquent. For instance on the confidence intervals I found dozens of quotes but his was the most concise and representative of the general point. I assure you I could find another slew of them.

Mickeyklein 19:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I proposed that title because all of the scientists quoted were in fact funded by the tobacco industry. I recognise that the tobacco industry position gets plenty of political support from people who are not getting paid, most notably libertarians like Penn and Teller, and I'd be happy to include a statement to that effect. There may even be independent cancer researchers and epidemiologists who dispute the conclusion that ETS is a cancer risk, but if so, strenuous efforts have failed to locate any statements by them. If Mickeyklein has such quotes, referring specifically to ETS (rather than out of context statements about confidence intervals in general), I'd be happy to have a look at them. JQ 10:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Chido6d's answers

• It appears from the comment above that JQ has acquiesced to MastCell. I do appreciate the brevity of JQ's submission; I feel that apart from his new section heading (which I did not notice until now), his contribution is a marginal improvement over the section as it now stands. I also am in agreement with his decision to incorporate the "Current State" section entirely into the remaining body of the article. It does, though, suffer from some of the same shortcomings and poor representations of MastCell's draft (discussed shortly), mainly because much of it seems to be copied over.
• MastCell's draft had me speechless for a few days, but I am now prepared to speak out. It was obviously a lot of work on his part, and the interest in this project is admirable. What follows is not a malicious critique; rather, it is an appeal to uphold Wikipedia's pillars.
  • The opening paragraph fails to mention that the statements are the Opinion of US District Court Judge Gladys Kessler. The reason for this is unknown; it has been suggested by another editor that this would "obfuscate" the fact that this is a court decision. On the other hand, in a decision handed down by another District Court in 1998, the name of the Judge (William Osteen) is mentioned no less than four times.
  • The next section is misleading. It states that Dr. Edwin Bradley took a "similar" approach (I suppose he means to Steven Milloy). Dr. Bradley believed that all studies that did not meet a level of statistical significance must (not "could" as the draft states) be dismissed (at least that's what the court document says). Mr. Milloy and Mr. Gori appear to accept all studies as a part of the entire body of evidence.
    • No. Gori's quote said that the 70% of studies which did not show a statistically significant difference were "moot". Bradley said that they must be dismissed. Those are similar approaches. MastCell ^Talk 16:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • In response to a somewhat bitter debate of the past, MastCell continues to cite only part of the conclusion of the 1998 WHO study. These conclusions come not only from the study itself, nor only from the abstract of the study. These conclusions come from the conclusion contained within the abstract of the study. This is the down-and-dirty, rubber meets the road, nitty-gritty conclusion of the study. This information was deemed newsworthy by the several papers cited and is included in their articles. Yet, this information doesn't make it into Wikipedia due to editor selection. The entire controversy is then blamed on the tobacco industry.
  • The section on the 1993 EPA report is watered down unacceptably. It fails to document any of the three major charges against the EPA: stating a conclusion before beginning, cherry picking the evidence, and adjusting the confidence interval.
  • The Enstrom/Kabat section is also misleading and lacking. It states that these gentlemen linked passive smoking with COPD -- then downplayed this finding -- when they did neither. After the study was published, the study groups were reconfigured by Davey Smith, who then wrote an editorial explaining his findings and interpretation of the data. This section is loaded with ad hominem attacks on the study's authors, it misquotes Dr. Enstrom (implying that there is only one opinion), and -- perhaps most of all -- it fails to even mention that the British Medical Journal was vilified for publishing this study (yet the BMJ defended this decision).
  • It has already been pointed out that Philip Morris and R. J. Reynolds should not be listed among those who accept the alleged dangers of ETS.
  • Overall, it should now be apparent that the draft (though assumedly borne of good faith) is simply not acceptable. A rough line-by-line analysis shows that this section, which is purported to fairly represent the minority viewpoint, leans heavily toward the majority view by nearly 3 to 1. The draft refers roughly 20 separate times to the tobacco industry (including 7 separate ad hominem attacks against Enstrom and Kabat). Not once is an argument of the minority view left to stand on its own merits against the rest of the body of the article (and the evidence). Each and every point is debunked, vilified, minimized and/or misrepresented. It uses bordering and block-quoting excessively, which emphasizes things according to the editor's wishes and preferences. I strongly contend that these things are in violation of Wikipedia policy WP:NPOV as it (among other things) documents the minority view only in a pejorative sense. Chido6d 03:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

In response to the last point only, I think we have a fundamentally different concept of NPOV which is at the heart of the matter. Chido6d asks for a section of the article in which the minority point of view is presented uncritically and set to stand against the body of mainstream evidence. I think that WP:WEIGHT mandates that minority POV's be presented by describing the relation of those minority views to the mainstream view, and by naming prominent adherents. In other words, characterizing the debate rather than engaging in it or re-fighting it. As to the rest, a huge volume of the finest quality sources make clear that tobacco industry was verifiably behind much of the controversy; to downplay their role and present this as a purely abstract scientific debate would be the NPOV violation. Finally, it's not a matter of biased editors "blaming" the WHO controversy on the tobacco industry; multiple reliable sources have made this clear. MastCell ^Talk 03:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Reader: please read the comment above, then read my draft, and tell me on this page if it is so. Chido6d 03:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Doing just that is illuminating. The whole of Chido6d's approach is revealed by a single adjective used above, which makes his entire contribution cristal clear:: "...the alleged dangers of ETS." Remember that an allegation is an assertion without proof. His purpose seems to systematically inject language that implies that, contrary to all evidence, it is not proven that secondhand smoke is harmful.

--Dessources 10:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

But the difference is this...my draft does not incorporate my personal views. At least I certainly hope it does not. I've adopted the suggestions of critical editors with whom I disagree, and meticulously documented what the sources say. Besides, you have just mischaracterized my view, and my views don't matter anyway. What matters is how the draft(s) comply with Wiki pillars and NPOV. An excellent example of using the word "allegation" the way you are defining it would be that I propose to present the dissenting view uncritically. Chido6d 11:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I use the word allegation the way it is defined in Wikipedia. --Dessources 12:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

In that case, pardon the misunderstanding. I use it as to charge which means that it could very well be true. This is an accepted definition as well. But I suppose for Wiki purposes, I stand corrected. Chido6d 12:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Draft Revisions

In response to some of the issues raised here and elsewhere, I've revised my draft (still to be found at User:MastCell/Passive smoking draft). Some specific changes:

• Removed RJR and Philip Morris from list of organizations accepting the harms of passive smoking
• I have made it even more explicitly clear which sources are being used to support claims of consensus, etc. Statements from Kessler's opinion are attributed to the Court, etc. I think the density of sourcing and attribution here goes well beyond what is necessary, in an effort to satisy objections.
• I've altered the "Osteen decision" to "EPA lawsuit" and removed Osteen's name in response to Chido's criticism. I would assume this was initially used because his decision is widely referred to as the "Osteen decision" (e.g. in the cited source here), whereas Kessler's is not widely referred to by her name. Nonetheless, in the spirit of compromise, I've removed Osteen's name and referenced, instead, a "U.S. District Court decision".
• I've utilized John Quiggin's version of a shortened presentation of individual papers and comments. Enstrom and Kabat have been shortened and folded into the first subsection, in accordance with WP:WEIGHT. Bradley's quote, to which Chido objected, has been removed. I've also removed the editorial reference to which Chido objected, replacing it with a direct quote.
• The handling of the WHO controversy is, I think, entirely appropriate per WP:WEIGHT and WP:V. The sourcing attributing the controversy to the tobacco industry is both impeccable and uncontroverted. The aspects of the WHO study relevant to the controversy are quoted; regarding allegations from Mickey and Chido that I am "suppressing" the full results (deja vu!), the full results are available via footnote.
• Regarding the EPA/Osteen decision, Chido calls it unacceptably watered down because, among other things, it does not document Osteen's finding that the EPA "stated a conclusion before beginning." My draft includes the statement that the EPA was found to have "committed to their conclusions in advance." I find these semantically equivalent, and I think the decision and the appeal are adequately and concisely described.
• I've added a brief section on "Public opinion", based on recent authoritative poll results; not sure yet whether this is a good idea in the long term.
• I've added the Australian and U.K. scientific commissions' findings to the list of organizations accepting the harms of passive smoking.

Comments? MastCell ^Talk 18:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. I'd still like to move the "state of the controversy" section into the main body of the article (with a different section title) and would suggest the same for "public opinion".JQ 19:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm at work and am unable to spend time analyzing the revision at the moment. I, too, made revisions to my own draft on 9/8 and am still waiting for comments and feedback. Chido6d 20:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

MastCell's revision is very good. I would still recommend that the quotation boxes be replaced with simple "blockquotes", to make the text flow more naturally. Concerning reference 45 (after "The more toxic makeup of secondhand smoke was first recognized in the tobacco industry's own research, though it never published its findings."), an even more authoritative (and earlier) source could be Diethelm, Pascal (July 2004). "The whole truth and nothing but the truth? The research that Philip Morris did not want you to see" (PDF). Lancet. 366: 86–92. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help).

--Dessources 23:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll get rid of the quoteboxes and replace them with blockquotes. I'll take a look at the Lancet reference - that may be a better (or at least complementary) one. MastCell ^Talk 03:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The Lancet reference has two more advantages: the Lancet is a highly authoritative source and has a high impact factor, and the paper comes from authors outside the US, rebalancing a Wikipedia article that tends to be a bit too much US-centric. The Schick and Glantz paper should also be cited, along two other papers by the same authors: Schick S, Glantz SA. Sidestream cigarette smoke toxicity increases with aging and exposure duration." Tob Control. 2006 Dec;15(6):424-9 and "Concentrations of the carcinogen 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone in sidestream cigarette smoke increase after release into indoor air: results from unpublished tobacco industry research." Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2007 Aug;16(8):1547-53. PMID 17684127 These papers present research results obtained by the tobacco industry in the 80s and 90s, and which it kept secret, all providing evidence of the high toxicity of secondhand smoke.

--Dessources 09:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that these are high-quality and relevant references, and have added them. MastCell ^Talk 17:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion needed

I am concerned with the distance that remains between the parties in this case. I suggest discussion and clarification on:

• WP:NPOV -- "It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions." Chido6d 11:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The minority view is represented according to the sources we have available documenting it. For example, quite a bit of space is devoted to the views of a few epidemiologists (as quoted in the Nature editorial) who feel that the risks of passive smoking are overblown. I don't see how this presentation is pejorative. It's certainly tempting to pick a few favorite phrases out of WP:NPOV - in fact, I was about to do so as well - but viewing the policy as a whole, it's clear that we need to represent accurately and proportionately what reliable sources have to say on the subject, and the rest will fall into place.

Can you be more specific with what I take to be your complaint? The views of prominent passive-smoking "skeptics" are presented as sources are available - but it would actually be violating NPOV to ignore the fact that Enstrom and Kabat's study was roundly criticized, or funded as "litigation-oriented" material by the tobacco industry, or mentioned prominently in the racketeering case. Do you think we should avoid mentioning Gori's or Milloy's tobacco-industry ties so that readers can "form their own opinions" without that well-documented piece of information? Most importantly, do you have more or better sources representing the "skeptical" viewpoint?

OK, I'll add one quote from WP:NPOV: "Disagreements over whether something is approached neutrally can usually be avoided through the practice of good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available." I think that we've gone to extensive pains to use the best and most reputable authoritative sources available. Every statement of any significance in my draft is attributed to sources which, by Wikipedia's definition, are highly reliable. Since my draft appears to have some support, I'd be curious to hear your specific concerns about its current revision, since I attempted to address your earlier concerns. MastCell ^Talk 19:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Although I gave my support to MastCell's version, I still think that undue weight is given to the so-called minority view, and that this version makes too many concessions to the point of view advocated by Chido6d. The scientific consensus about the toxicity of secondhand smoke is overwhelming. People like Gio Gori are not authoritative sources: let us face it, they are just mouthpieces used by the tobacco industry to continue propagating its denial policy (for which it has been found guilty of conspiracy and racketeering by several US courts and elsewhere). The 150 countries which have, to this day, ratified the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, an international treaty, recognize that "scientific evidence has unequivocally established that tobacco consumption and exposure to tobacco smoke cause death, disease and disability" (emphasis added). To comply with the NPOV rule, much less space should be devoted to the minority view than is currently the case, as space devoted to a minority view should be commensurate with the relevance and representativity of that view. I nevertheless accept MastCell's version as a workable compromise, hoping that its shortcomings will be corrected by other editors in the process of time, and also because I cannot be too demanding, having myself failed to produce my own proposed version. I also accept the fact that a section on the denial policy of the tobacco industry may be justified on historical grounds, as this is very well documented in highly reliable sources, including in a very thorough court judgment (USA vs. Philip Morris, et al.)

--Dessources 10:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight is an interesting issue here. I think scientifically, it's clear that there is consensus, and that giving excess space to uncritically rehashing now-discredited scientific arguments violates WP:WEIGHT (though I remain open to reliable sources indicating ongoing scientific debate, should any be provided).

However, Wikipedia is not a solely scientific reference; it covers notable events in the public sphere as well. Clearly the debate over passive smoking was a major event, as the volume and quality of sourcing attests. Therefore, I think it makes sense to cover the debate in some depth, and this does not violate WP:WEIGHT.

A large volume of the highest-quality reliable sources attest that the debate has been settled, but it remains an important historical event. The challenge is to recount and cover the debate, using the best and most current available sources, without re-engaging in it or giving an erroneous impression that there is still any active scientific debate going on (at least in the absence of sources documenting such debate). MastCell ^Talk 18:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with MastCell here, and this is what I was pretty much trying to say with this post. The controversy is interesting and relevant in a historical context, and as long as the views of industry funded dissenters are discussed in this context, I don't see a WP:WEIGHT problem. It's only when the minority/non-consensus views are presented as though they are actively under debate by the scientific/regulatory community and given equal space in that context that I see a problem. Yilloslime 18:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, I think we need to go here as well: WP:NPOVT. It's good to see some activity and interest around here, as it had been relatively quiet for a few days. It is really not necessary to distort my position -- for example, asking if I think we should avoid mentioning someone's tobacco industry ties when my submission does just that. To answer a more legitimate question, I do have more sources that I may wish to include as time allows. It is admirable that we have "gone to extensive pains to use the best and most reputable authoritative sources available." Have you put an equal amount of effort towards being unbiased? Reminder: WP:WEIGHT is not a license to deliberately disparage any minority viewpoint. Exactly when was the debate "settled", anyway? Chido6d 03:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The minority view has not been "deliberately disparaged". A large volume of high-quality sources debunk the minority view and discuss the central role of the tobacco industry in propping it up. The article cites those. It would be biased to ignore them or minimize their weight. As to "avoiding bias", the best way I know of to avoid bias and uphold WP:NPOV is to use the highest-quality sources and accurately reflect their content. That's what I've tried to accomplish in my draft.

As to "settled", I'm not going to state my personal opinion here. I'll just refer you to the sources quoted in my draft of the article, which amply document the debate and the development of consensus. MastCell ^Talk 18:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Your draft is there for any honest reader to conclude whether or not it undermines WP:NPOV by going to "extensive pains" to present a viewpoint pejoritavely. No one is disputing what your sources say, though on several occasions I have pointed out exaggerations and obvious inaccuracies. NPOV is also about how and why you are using your sources. as well as what you include and what you choose to suppress.Chido6d 05:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If you haven't realized yet that casting this in terms of "honesty" and "suppression" is counterproductive, then I'm rapidly losing confidence that this process is going to be useful. As to why I've cited the sources I have, I would hope it's obvious that they represent scientific opinion on the matter. Do you have a specific criticism? MastCell ^Talk 22:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I have plenty, but until the points already made have been addressed, I shall withhold. Chido6d 23:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Chido, are you arguing that MastCell has exclusively drawn from sources that are antagonistic to the minority viewpoint, while ignoring reliable secondary sources that see the minority view in a different light? If so, then I think the best way to move this argument forward would be for you to bring these hitherto ignored sources to the table. If these sources don't exists, then what exactly is it that you are arguing? Yilloslime (t) 00:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Questions from mediator

Just a few questions to help frame the discussion. Please keep answers as brief as possible. Think of an appropriate answer as an "in a nutshell" summary. Vassyana 10:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

1. What does being neutral (as a whole) mean in WP:NPOV?
2. How does WP:NPOV#Fairness of tone affect this topic?
3. What does WP:UNDUE mean, in essence?

User:Yilloslime's Responses

1. What does being neutral (as a whole) mean in WP:NPOV?

Neutral means allotting space to the discussion of conflicting viewpoints in accordance to their acceptance by reliable secondary sources and describing the various viewpoints using the same tone and neutral langauge used to describe consensus positions--the POV of the author should not be discernable from the way s/he has described the various viewpoints.

2. How does WP:NPOV#Fairness of tone affect this topic?

Certainly when describing minority views, we need to present them as plausible, being careful to not downplay their credibility by employing certain language. But while giving minority positions the dignity they deserve, it is equally critical to avoid presenting them in such a manner that an uninformed reader may be lead to believe they are more widely accepted than they actually are. Settled controversies should not be presented as though they are still actively under debate; obscure beliefs should not be presented as though they are widely held; etc.

3. What does WP:UNDUE mean, in essence?

See #2, directly above. Yilloslime (t) 23:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Chido6d's Responses

1. "Neutral" means that the article is not an advocacy piece. The ultimate goal should be to minimize bias and maximize accuracy so that the general reader could not tell which side of a debate the editors are on.
2. Fairness of Tone is extremely important, yet perhaps the most difficult. The key is not to minimize or disparage an opposing viewpoint. Indeed, the policy states that an article should be written with the tone that all positions are at least plausible. We can't let our personal bias get the best of us if we are to be taken seriously as editors.
3. WP:UNDUE means that a minority viewpoint will, generally, get a smaller volume of space than a more prominent view. It also means that one cannot portray a minority view as having equal or superior standing to a majority view. Anything else, such as deliberate suppression or maligning of the minority view, is clear abuse of WP:UNDUE. Chido6d 23:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

MastCell's responses

1. "Neutral", as explicated in WP:NPOV, means that conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic (as evidenced by reliable sources) are presented accurately. Views should not be presented pejoratively by editors. However, if many or all reliable, authoritative sources view a position as incorrect or discredited, then we must accurately reflect what those sources have to say (without adding editorial disparagement of any viewpoint). In other words, we as editors should not be in the business of disparaging or debunking particular viewpoints. However, if a large volume of authoritative, reliable, verifiable sources disparage or debunk a viewpoint, then we need to reflect those sources without adding our editorial asides. The key to NPOV on controversial topics is good research and reliance on authoritative, reputable sources.

   Addendum: Other quotes from WP:NPOVT which may be relevant here:

   • "Wikipedia should report all major points of view; however, it should do so in proportion to the credibility of the experts holding the various theses." (emphasis mine)
   • "One measure of a view's importance is the credibility of the experts who hold that view." (emphasis mine).

   Credibility is probably somewhat relevant to neutrality here, since much of the literature (and many of the experts) produced by the tobacco industry are widely regarded as lacking in credibility (see Surgeon General's findings, U.S.A. v. Philip Morris et al., WHO inquiry, medical journal articles, etc cited in my draft). MastCell ^Talk 21:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

2. Fairness of tone regards how we, as editors, present what reliable sources have said. We have an obligation not to exclude notable, reliable exponents of a minority view, and when we quote or summarize those exponents, we need to do so in a fair manner which does not negatively frame or undermine their arguments. However, fairness of tone does not mean that views which have drawn widespread or universal criticism should be presented uncritically, or outside the context of that criticism. Again, the solution is a reliance on good sources. It would be completely unfair for me, as an editor, to assert or imply that tobacco-industry-funded researchers adjusted their results at the behest of the industry. However, if an impeccably notable, reliable source has made the same allegation, then I would be remiss for not reporting it. The bottom line: accurately describing verifiable criticism of a view does not violate "fairness of tone". However, using the editorial voice to imply unverified skepticism (e.g. "Many claim that a scientific consensus now exists concerning passive smoking...") does violate fairness of tone.
3. I think the above summarize my view of WP:UNDUE. Basically, minority views are presented in proportion to their acceptance among experts in the field. Exceptional claims, like those of scientific consensus, require exceptional sources - which have been provided in this case. The only way to adhere to WP:UNDUE is, again, to use good sources. Where notable exponents of the minority view have been found, they have been named and quoted at length (I would add, greatly in excess of their actual representation among experts in the field). MastCell ^Talk 17:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Chido6d's rebuttal

Let's take a look at answer #2 above, then do a little further observation. Speaking of a minority view, he correctly states: "when we quote or summarize...we need to do so in a fair manner which does not negatively frame or undermine their arguments." This statement becomes highly qualified shortly afterward, but let's take a look at how MastCell's opening paragraph has evolved since the mediation process began:

Intro then

Intro now

The scientific community had reached consensus on passive smoking as a cause of disease by the mid-1980's, and industry documents indicate that tobacco companies had determined even earlier that passive smoking was harmful to non-smokers. Nonetheless, controversy over the harms of passive smoking persisted, generated in large part by the tobacco industry. According to the United States Surgeon General, "The industry has... attempted to undermine the findings of key studies... and attempted to sustain controversy even as the scientific community reached consensus.

In 1986, responding to growing evidence of the harms of passive smoking, the United States Surgeon General issued a report concluding that secondhand smoke was a cause of disease. In the same year, the International Agency for Research on Cancer and the National Research Council also released reports concluding that secondhand smoke was a cause of lung cancer. Over the subsequent 20 years, the accumulation of scientific evidence has led to a scientific consensus that passive smoking is indeed harmful to non-smokers. A U.S. District Court found, in a racketeering case against the tobacco industry, that the industry had internally acknowledged the harmfulness of passive smoking even earlier. Nonetheless, the tobacco industry has played a central role in denying the harms of secondhand smoke and generating and sustaining controversy over the harms of passive smoking.

Please bear in mind that this paragraph opens the section on the minority viewpoint. These changes have occurred whilst suppressing the conclusions of a seven-nation WHO/IARC study -- an action explained by the following statement: "the full results are available via footnote".

Questions for discussion and/or pondering:

1. From the draft text, and from the information above, is it possible to determine the POV of the editor?
2. To what extent does the draft (the intro in particular) remain true to the spirit of fairness of tone?
3. Does using reliable sources give the editor a license or mandate to use them in any way that he/she chooses?
4. Is an attempt to completely discredit an opposing viewpoint in the best interest of Wikipedia, even when using reliable sources?
5. Is Wikipedia a venue to characterize a debate, or to describe it?

Chido6d 03:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me start by saying that my draft is not set in stone and I'm happy to respond to specific criticisms of it. The evolution which Chido points to above was actually in response to his earlier criticisms that the "scientific majority" view was presented as fact. I attempted, therefore, to better indicate exactly which sources and organizations defined the scientific consensus.

As far as my POV, I think the paragraph very accurately reflects what reliable sources say. Such sources have described the scientific consensus as above, and such sources have documented the tobacco industry's central role in propagating and sustaining controversy even after the scientfic community had reached consensus. It's very simple: views need to be presented in the context of their acceptance by experts in the field. The above paragraph establishes that context. It frames dissenting views in the context of the views of experts in the field; that framing may be "negative" in that experts consider minority views debunked or industry-driven, but it is not "negative" in the sense that I've editorialized. In fact, to avoid exactly that problem (and in response to your earlier criticism), I went back and carefully specified whose views were being reflected as "expert opinion" - hence the evolution you point to above. MastCell ^Talk 19:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I do want to thank you for your attempt to better indicate your sources. As far as specific criticisms, the draft is seriously lacking as it, among other things, leaves a gaping hole in the WHO/IARC study of 1998. There really has been no justification for this; "the full results are available via footnote" is clearly unacceptable and highly suspicious.

I've not had the time to study your contribution since you made revisions. The introduction alone, though, is sufficient to make my point: It appears to be a clear attempt to frame the opposing viewpoint in a negative sense. The dramatization, overkill and repetition for the sake of emphasis is obvious and is a violation of WP:NPOVfairness of tone. I'm not accusing you of anything; you may not even know you are doing it. Allow me to assist:

Biased	Neutral
...controversy over the harms of passive smoking persisted... ...the tobacco industry has played a central role in denying the harms of secondhand smoke and generating and sustaining controversy over the harms of passive smoking.	...controversy over whether passive smoking is harmful persisted... ...the tobacco industry has played a central role in denying whether passive smoking is harmful, and in generating and sustaining controversy over the issue of passive smoking.

This article, and Wikipedia as a whole, does not belong to us to put our spin on what we want it to say. It belongs to the people, and they deserve unbiased and meticulously accurate information.

Over the next day or two, I will be bringing many other examples to light.

In response to a couple of questions, however, my main concerns about the whole article (and this section in particular) are these:

It is quite proper to say that the minority view is not a majority view, even to add that the minority view is opposed by major health organizations, and that the tobacco industry has played a role in this controversy while attempting to protect their own economic interests. A violation occurs when statements are biased, clear and obvious attempts to present the minority view pejoritavely riddle the article, and relevant information is suppressed.

One can indeed use only reliable sources, be reasonably true to what those sources say, and still do all of these things. More examples forthcoming. Chido6d 04:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

In regard to your first example, I'd be happy to simply the phrase to "controversy over passive smoking persisted..." - in fact, I'll do so now. As to the second, "denying the harms" is in fact an accurate representation of the bulk of reliable sources, which indicate that tobacco companies were aware of the harms, or likely harms, of passive smoking despite their public campaign to deny those harms. If you find the term "denial" too loaded, though, then I can drop the "denying" part and leave it at "generating and sustaining controversy". I'll make that change to my draft as well.

As to WHO/IARC, the controversial aspect of the study (the weak link between passive smoking and lung cancer) is discussed. Non-controversial aspects are not, since this is the "controversy" section, though the study is cited in its entirety. Taking individual sub-findings of individual studies out of context to make a point contrary to that made by the study authors is a familiar tactic (after all, I've worked on AIDS reappraisal), but it constitutes original synthesis.

For perhaps the last time, accusing me or others of "suppressing" data in service of a "clear and obvious" attempt to bias the article (which belongs to "the people") is a depressingly familiar, unproductive, and dare I say hypocritical form of gamesmanship. MastCell ^Talk 05:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I support MastCall argument, but still think that some meaning is lost when going from "...controversy over the harms of passive smoking persisted..." to "controversy over passive smoking persisted...", and therefore this is not an improvement. The controversy is indeed about the harms of passive smoking, so why not say it?

--Dessources 09:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The first example given by Chiod6d to illustrate what he considers a biased versus a neutral formulation is arguable. I think that "...controversy over whether passive smoking is harmful persisted..." is actually less neutral and more akward from and English point of view than "...controversy over the harms of passive smoking persisted...". A controversy is always about an issue which is asserted as true by one party. A controversy is not about a question - a question is a question, not a controversy. What may be controversial is the answer to the question. The term or clause following "a controversy over..." must therefore be a statement of fact, not a question. "Whether" implies an issue with two alternatives still being debated ("whether ... or not"). If two alternatives are still being debated, there is no controversy, but a debate. So following the word controversy with a clause starting with whether is not logical. I actually did a Google test, typing "controversy over" as search term. I looked at the results. None of them had the expression "controversy over whether..." (I stopped after 10 pages of results). "Controversy over whether..." also introduces a double level of doubt about an issue: it says that it is controversial and that it is not settled, as there are still two alternatives being debated. This double insistence in the span of a few words makes the sentence too heavily loaded on the side of the "doubt" point of view. The same type of remark applies to Chido's second "neutral" example: "controversy over the issue of passive smoking" - here, "the issue of passive smoking" acts as a weasel expression - you expect something rather clear cut to follow "controversy over...", not simply an "issue".

--Dessources 12:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I gotta agree with Dessources here, sort of: I don't think that "controversy over the harms of passive smoking persisted" is and more or less POV that "controversy over whether passive smoking is harmful persisted," but in terms of readability, flow, and plain old good writing the first phrase is much better. Yilloslime (t) 16:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

On the same vein, the formulation presented in Chido6d's second example as the neutral counterpart of MastCell is also akward. The formulation used by Chido belongs to the pattern "While someone was doing something, he was also doing something else", which is most often used to express or suggest either that two independent activities are done at the same time, or, increasingly, to contrast two activities that take place at the same time, suggesting a contradiction, an incoherence or some other difference between the two activities. This seems to suggest that the tobacco industry's "denying that passive smoking is harmful" and their playing "a central role in generating and sustaining controversy over the issue of passive smoking" are either unrelated activities or opposed activities, while actually these two aspects, the denying and the sustaining of the controversy, are known, and documented, as two facets of the same policy (see, for instance, Kessler's judgment). The "while" formulation is therefore rather misleading, as it implies some situation which is not stated and not documented - it is certainly not an improvement in the direction of neutrality. Unless the implied situation is made explicit, the conjunction "and" should be used to link the two clauses: "The tobacco industry has denied that passive smoking is harmful and has played a central role in generating and sustaining controversy over the issue of passive smoking." But, then, we are back to MastCell's version.

--Dessources 15:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Here I totally agree with Dessources--the Chido's formulation is slightly misleading. And again I'll appeal to the gods of good prose: MastCell's formulation is simply less awkward and easier to read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yilloslime (talk • contribs) 17:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I did go ahead and change the sentences in response to Chido's points above; I think they read OK in their new versions. Please take a look: User:MastCell/Passive smoking draft, and see what you think in terms of readability. MastCell ^Talk 16:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I can certainly live with the change. Yilloslime (t) 16:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me, too. Dessources 17:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

In an of itself, it is an improvement to the sentence. Yet, when the depth, scope and extent of violations of NPOV and fairness of tone are considered, it is minute.

On another note, since two conclusions of the 1998 WHO study are not controversial, I am adding them to the article text under the effects section. Chido6d 03:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Chido, when you've raised actual specific issues, they have been rapidly addressed. But for every specific issue or improvement you suggest, we get dozens of vague accusations of "suppression", "advocacy", etc. The WHO findings are not "controversial", but taking specific sub-findings out of context of a primary-source journal article, to make a point distinctly at variance with the conclusions drawn by the authors, in service of a minority POV not advanced by the authors of the primary source, and without the support of secondary interpretative sources, is original synthesis and gives undue weight to a subfinding of an individual study. MastCell ^Talk 05:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

So, putting them in the article without commentary is "taking them out of context"? Exactly how is this the case? Per your note on the revert, does "A seven-nation WHO study condluded..." sound better to you? Chido6d 11:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

No, because the underlying issue is context and weight. The study's findings on childhood ETS exposure were not "controversial", in that they didn't generate the kind of mass-media response that the central findings did. But the fact that they were not controversial does not automatically mean they ought to be highlighted in the article. These are sub-findings of an individual study, you are using them to make a point distinctly different from that of the study authors, and you are giving these findings undue weight by featuring them. Why should we highlight those particular findings? Is there a reliable secondary source indicating their relevance? That's the WP:WEIGHT issue. It would be quite easy to go through the various individual studies, cherry-pick the individual findings which are at odds with the mainstream interpretation, and highlight them so as to imply that the mainstream interpretation is faulty. But doing so would ignore the balance of evidence and be a serious editorial intrustion into the debate we're trying to characterize, in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. MastCell ^Talk 16:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Dessources' responses

To answer Vassyana's questions, I will simply quote what I consider the most significant passages of the Wikipedia offical policy where the questions he raised are addressed. This is not laziness: rather, I simply think the policy is very well formulated and fully corresponds to my understanding of the issues.

1. WP:NEU consists in "representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)."
2. Fairness of tone consists in "writing articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views."
3. WP:UNDUE means that we "should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties."

--Dessources 21:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Mediator comments

1. This is not the place to rehash arguments regarding evidence, from either side. Stick to discussion about what reliable sources state. Do not put forward interpretations not supported explicitly by reliable sources. Focus on the published content, including reliably sourced commentary and interpretation of any data.
2. Comments regarding user conduct must cease. They are not productive to our aims here in mediation and only serve to further inflame the situation. Focus on the content.
3. I will not, under any circumstances, "crown a winner" or declare a consensus version. That is well outside my role as mediator, and actually contradictory to it. Mediators do not take sides or impose solutions.
4. I would ask that everyone take some time to step back, take a breath and let the discussion cool down. In the mean time, please feel free to answer the questions I pose above. I believe that those questions cut to the heart of the disagreement, more than any given detail or specific point in the drafts.
5. This is not the appropriate place to discuss arbitration. As a reminder, the mediation itself and related communications may not be used as evidence of user conduct.
6. If users feel that they cannot continue the mediation in good faith, or wish to seek other resolutions for this issue, please bring it to my attention discreetly via email. I would prefer to discuss any issues individually to see what can be done to address the concerns and focus on the content issues at hand.
7. Thanks! :o) Vassyana 16:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think your first point is crucial. If it's accepted, then there's nothing left to argue about - the article makes good use of reliable sources to document the mainstream science viewpoint and the industry viewpoint(s). If your point isn't accepted, then of course as a mediator, you can't do anything to enforce it. JQ 06:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)