Talk:Passive smoking/Archive 2

The anti-tobacco movement and pharmaceutical companies
Many are complaining that those who influence tobacco policy are receiving big donations from the makers of smoking cessation products. I saw a Canadian newspaper article examining the potential conflict of interest, and I think it deserves a mention (under criticism). Thoughts?71.72.217.102 04:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it would be a shame for a corporation to subvert public policy making to promote their product, despite its dangers... that would be reprehensible. Particularly if, say, there were reams of documentation of said corporations' nefarious machinations. Glad we're on the same page - though some might prefer the "anti-lung cancer movement" rather than the "anti-tobacco movement". Semantics. As to the contention that drug companies are behind "tobacco policy", I'd like to see this source. Regardless, though, it doesn't belong here. Maybe you could argue for a mention in the tobacco article or in an article on tobacco regulation, but I don't see how it applies to secondhand smoke in particular. After all, there's still no pharmaceutical that protects you from that. MastCell Talk 05:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input. That being said, I don't see a clear connection between the article and passive smoking.  The link is here.  Of course there is no pill that could protect us from second hand smoke.  We all know that there is "no safe level of exposure".  I am, though, glad that there are safe levels of lead, benzene, arsenic, asbestos, toulene and the like in our drinking water. Otherwise, we would all be dehydrated.  Must be better to ingest it than to inhale it.  I find that interesting...71.72.217.102 07:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting perhaps - but not altogether surprising. If you ingest something it goes through the stomach & digestive processes, and then has to find a way of getting absorbed into the bloodstream. If you inhale a gas, it enters the lungs which are designed to allow ready transfer of gaseous substances across the alveolar barrier into the lungs (per Fick's law) - so to use a slightly silly example, it's pretty clear why smoking cigarettes is more dangerous than eating them. Although they should form part of a balanced diet... Nmg20 08:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You're not seriously comparing cigarettes to water, right? You agree that water is essential for life, and therefore the unavoidable consumption of trace amounts of metals or pollutants in drinking water is quite different from exposure to carcinogens from cigarettes? MastCell Talk 17:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course I'm not comparing the two; that would be ridiculous. Just pointing out the double standard.  Without question, ETS is a source of indoor air pollution.  On the other hand, making statements ("no safe level") that directly contradict the principles of toxicology is disingenuous to say the least.71.72.217.102 19:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

If you believe there's a double standard at work, then you are in fact comparing the two, and implying that they should be subject to the same standard. MastCell Talk 20:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not. Perhaps I misunderstood you.  What I'm saying is there are, no doubt, dangers in certain levels of exposure to almost anything (especially toxic chemicals, carcinogens and yes, even ETS).  I specifically refer to the "no safe level" claim and the double standard that exists (not only in my imagination).  To say that "X" is so dangerous that you cannot be exposed to a level small enough to not hurt you is not just absurd; it's pure fantasy.71.72.217.102 23:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't want to be rude, User:71.72.217.102, but if you actually know people who believe that there are no dangers in exposure to carcinogens or toxic chemicals, could you let me know, as I have a bridge I urgently need to sell them? Thanks. Nmg20 00:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Call me Chido. I've had this account for a few weeks, but rarely do I log in (I'll try to log in regularly from now on).  There is nothing rude about the question.  I won't take offense since I didn't say there are no dangers.  I'll see if I can hunt someone down who thinks that, but I doubt I will.  What I did say was (in a rare moment of agreement with the EPA) that there are "levels of contaminant(s)...below which there are no known or expected risks to health."Chido6d 02:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Getting back to the original purpose of this talk page and the bias of pharmaceutical companies maybe I can add more light than heat. There is no question that Johnson & Johnson funds a large bulk of the antismoking initiatives through their marketing arm of Robert Woods Johnson. That is a simple verifiable fact and can be esily verfied. Being honest about this is simply the point of the section and good science, Second to the overall bias. User Chido6d is exactly right. It is a principle of toxicology the "the dose makes the poison" otherwise we would all be dead from the food and water we eat and drink. Thus, there are billions of people and thousands of scientists on the planet who can testify to the fact that carcinogens and toxic chemicals are safe below certain levels. To say that there is no safe level of ETS is not correct because there are no data anywhere to support this. Even the sixty odd epidemiological studies on populations subjected to second hand smoke had to stretch their confidence limits beyond scientific standards to get the relative risk (non significant) of 0.16. I hope this helps. Whoscience 09:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * True...but the purpose of the talk page is to discuss the article itself and edits to it, not to debate the subject (though it slips into that territory often). I didn't use the pharmaceutical source because it was pointed out that it doesn't relate directly to ETS (only to the anti-tobacco movement).  Any changes to the article need a reliable source (mostly .org, .gov or .edu) and should be published material.  There is some highly charged debate about the article, though, and unfortunately good suggestions or contributions get attacked anyway.  You'll find some good reading material on the case page related to the POV dispute. Chido6d 17:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Enstrom and Kabat
I did some digging into this controversial study and expanded the section a bit. Not surprisingly, a revert was done within hours -- even though I was meticulous to uphold the standards of this site (I'm learning). The reason given for the revert was "undue weight on a (small) minority view". My contribution consisted of the following: a two sentence summary of the study's conclusion(s), a one sentence summary (from a BMJ associate editor) of the responses received regarding the study, and one or two sentences from the BMJ editor defending their publication of the study. All statements were sourced and uncontroversial (I used the study itself and the BMJ only). As it stands, this section contains (approximately) 2 lines of information about the study itself (which is inadequate) and about 22 lines of criticism (some of which are not directly related to this study). The criticism was left intact. Assuming good faith, as difficult as that may be, I am writing here opening the forum for comments before undoing the disappearance of my contribution. Certainly the conclusion of the study, briefly stated, is not undue weight. Neither is documentation of the controversy it generated. It is also quite significant that the BMJ defended itself amid a firestorm of criticism and even calls for them to recant on publication of the study.71.72.217.102 18:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, the vandalism charge was inappropriate. I'm on the fence about the undue weight thing; the controversy was reasonably significant, though expanding at length on a couple of the dissenting studies while rapidly glossing over the much greater number and quality of studies supporting the link does give the appearance of undue weight. MastCell Talk 18:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As I pointed out, the length of the article, in large part, has to do with extensive criticism (which I am not particularly opposed to). The contribution is relevant because information on the study itself (and these aspects of it) is scant, and the controversy generated by its inclusion in the BMJ is not factually documented.  The majority of studies were not considered controversial (at least by the health community), so this aspect would not be a factor in covering them.  The vandalism charge was ridiculous.  I was working on the edit, and I'm not sure how changes were saved before my edit was complete.71.72.217.102 19:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm reverting the article to my version of this section in the absence of meaningful objection. The undue weight claim is subjective; in this case it has not been credibly established.71.72.217.102 23:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've put the Osteen and EK material in a section headed "Criticism", noting that this was promoted by TASSC and other front organisations. Together with the tobacco industry response, this makes up more than half the article. I think this is obviously undue weight. I'd suggest that the Osteen decision deserves three sentences - EPA reported risks, Osteen ruled against them, overturned on appeal, and Enstrom and Kabat about the same - findings, criticised for tobacco funding and methodological flaws, BMJ defended publication. Maybe the Osteen stuff could be cut off into a separate article, since it's a notable controversy in the US context.JQ 00:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm for the briefer mention, and against spinning off another article as a POV fork. MastCell Talk 01:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's "wordy", but much of that is due to contributions that stray from the facts of the case or study and babble on in efforts to discredit, debunk and preserve certain viewpoints (no offense intended). For example, regarding the Osteen decision, someone chose to discuss the testimony of Congressman Bliley.  Though I still do not know how he testified, or what effect his testimony had, I do know that he received donations from "big tobacco".  I also question the subtle jab at Judge Osteen's crediblilty; I'm not opposed to it, but why is it there?  It didn't help me understand what the case and the surrounding controversy were all about.  I had to find out elsewhere.  For years, I had asked myself why the suit was brought, and on what basis was the decision overturned.  Now, the information is there.  I suppport a careful abridgement; what I would object to is deleting information relating directly to the Osteen case or the Enstrom/Kabat study.71.72.217.102 04:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've cut back to the basics on Osteen. Those who are really interested in a decade-old, effectively moot, court case, or a 15-year-old EPA report can follow the references. If this looks OK, I'll try the same with E&K. JQ 05:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your efforts, but it is not acceptable. It does not mention that the EPA had committed to a conclusion before research had begun, that they (EPA) relaxed the CI to achieve the desired result, etc. It also does not explain the basis for appeal.  I don't have time to work on it now, but can try to do so this evening.71.72.217.102 12:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I added the stuff about Bliley receiving money from the tobacco industry, but that came about because of a common problem on this and other tobacco-related articles: editors believe that public figures are automatically honest and beyond reproach. In Congressman Bliley's case, that manifestly wasn't true, and so I added details of the significant sums he'd received; I believe it made a valid point about the issues surrounding politicians' testimony in such cases, but have no real issue with it being cut from the article. As an aside, it did say in the text that he testified in favour of the tobacco industry. From memory, the Osteen stuff was actually added to make him appear more credible (by virtue of having found against the tobacco industry in the past), but it wasn't added by me.
 * I think the article reads far, far better in its shorter format - as John Quiggin has said, this information is outdated anyway and is not relevant to the article. As soon as we put back in part of it, we'll end up arguing over whether or not to put everything else back in too - for instance, if we're pointing out that the EPA were found to have committed to a conclusion in advance, I could suggest we should be pointing out that the testimony of some people at the hearing was potentially biased by financial contributions from the tobacco industry, and so say we need Bliley back in... Nmg20 12:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The information is very relevant. The EPA was found to have behaved in a heinous fashion.  Regardless of where you stand on this issue, committing to a conclusion before doing research is dishonest; it is bad science and it is reprehensible.  If you feel that Bliley's testimony is important, I recommend pulling a quote from Judge Osteen's decision demonstrating that (I'm not sure it's in there).  I think the CRS report on the study is less relevant.  You also laid out a very weak case for general endorsement.  A more accurate statement is that they endorsed certain (or several) aspects of the study, including its purpose -- but not its findings.71.72.217.102 22:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

As the Osteen decision has since been overturned, I'm not sure it holds any force of law, and going on as if it does is undue weight. I think the shorter version is more appropriate. MastCell Talk 23:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It does not have force of law. The court found that the EPA was advisory (not regulatory) and thereby was not subject to the lawsuit.  The allegations and finding of misconduct were not overturned.  I'm replacing the section with a brief overview and am open for discussion.  Please no 3RR, vandalism or other allegations.  By the way, I forgot to mention that I do not trust politicians.  No matter where they get their money.71.72.217.102 23:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If you can find a reliable legal source to say the decision still has legal force, that would be worth including. Unless you have a source for this, we should stick to the facts which are that the decision was made, then overturned on appeal. I'll restate my preference for the short version, but leave it up to editors other than me and 71.72.217.102 to say which is better. JQ 23:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm...I said the decision does not (repeat NOT) have legal force. Assuming good faith, I suppose you misread.  Current version states nothing but the facts.71.72.217.102 00:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Apologies, I did indeed misread. But if the decision has no legal force, it's just the opinion of one person in the US, stated a decade ago, about a report that's even older. Given the frequency with which it comes up in discussion, it deserves a mention, but not the lengthy exposition that you have supported.JQ 00:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I noticed your (JQ) tweaking of my edit (Osteen decision); I had strongly considered removing that phrase as well and support the current version.71.72.217.102 11:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * My understanding of the Appeals Court decision (which may be faulty; I'm not a lawyer) is that they overturned the decision based on the EPA's lack of regulatory authority (as the IP stated above). As this was the EPA's first contention, the Appeals Court did not get so far as to rule on the EPA's other complaints about the Osteen decision (since it had already been overturned). Again, I'm leery about attaching a lot of weight to an overturned court decision from 1993, particuarly if this legal decision is being used as a counterweight to the reams of scientific evidence. MastCell Talk 16:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've read (skimmed) the appeal and I think it was only based on the five arguments. At least that is all I could find...did the EPA plan to defend itself against misconduct as well?  They did claim to follow certain protocols of the Radon Research Act, but to my knowledge they stopped claiming that they did not manipulate the data.
 * I have edited the Enstrom/Kabat piece and it is brief, all the while noting how the entire section has been mysteriously sandwiched in criticism (both before and after). A couple of things I wanted to mention...I did not remove the reference to Milloy in malice.  If you want to mention him, please do so elsewhere.  The addition seemed to be an attempt to attribute everything that followed to a kook (Milloy).  I also propose that those who believe in the purported dangers of ETS share the "scientific majority" view.  The word mainstream is suggestive; majority is still powerful and should serve your purposes.  One final note; if one wants to claim that Enstrom/Kabat proved an increase in COPD, I would respectfully suggest a better reference than the commentary of Davey Smith.  I understand that he lumped different groups together and did some recalculations -- something that the study did not do.  Such as that should at least be disclosed.71.72.217.102 05:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Davey who? The reference wasn't a commentary by anyone called Smith, it was a communication to the BMJ from Hedley et al - as the reference clearly stated. I put it back in the interests of fairness, in that their research might have a little more credibility if it didn't fly in the face of everyone else's data on every single ETS issue (they found a relative risk of 1.27 for COPD, although the 95% CI included 1) - but no problem seeing it cut if you don't feel it should be in there. Nmg20 10:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Milloy and TASSC were among the most prominent critics of the EPA study. Milloy is certainly not a kook - until the recent past he was probably the most effective advocate of Big Tobacco (and Exxon, and lots more). Even now he still has a heap of influence with his gig at Fox News. Of course, he's on the payroll, but, as the article shows, so are Enstrom and Kabat, and most of the scientists who've published research purporting to show that smoking is safe. JQ 12:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I support JQ's position here - it's leaning towards weasel words if we just say "there has been some dissent" without mentioning the most notable figures in propagating that dissent, IMHO. Mentioning Milloy and TASSC is directly comparable to mentioning the WHO and the IARC in the "Scientific basis for bans" section. Nmg20 12:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine...but I don't think the TASSC technically exists anymore. Doesn't he call it something else? I still don't like how it is worded, probably because it is one sentence.  I will try to revise it and preserve all of the information; when this happens, if there is a problem, just revert and explain here.71.72.217.102 01:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV
I have put an NPOV banner on the article. I think that the 224 kilobytes of text above this testify that the neutrality of the article is disputed rather heavily. It doesn't do for some little clique of editors, with a strong anti-smoking bias, to declare that they own the article, that the consensus lies with them, and that they get the final say on what is included.--AcetylcholineAgonist 13:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Erm, have you heard of something called "consensus"? If you dispute the article, discuss it here before slapping an NPOV tag on it.  Note that the article is sourced throughout with a large number of scientific studies (i.e. not newspaper op-eds).  It's certainly the case that evidence not singularly one-way in passive smoking studies, but most points against the direction you're arguing for.  As for an "anti-smoking clique", at least feign assuming good faith.  --Plumbago 13:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You tell me to 'assume good faith', yet your entire post is patronising and dripping with insincerity. But I'll try.  However, according to this policy: NPOV_dispute, specifically the section on initiating POV discussions, one doesn't need to obtain 'consensus' to put an NPOV tag on an article.  My concerns to do with NPOV are exactly the same as those being discussed above, so to lay them out here would be redundant and tedious.  I'll assume (a la 'good faith') that Plumbago's little mistake about needing consensus to put a tag on an article was just that, a mistake, and not some way of trying to assert dominance here.  I just registered an account, and have changed my IP messages here so they are signed with my account name.--AcetylcholineAgonist 14:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * A large portion of the 224kb of stuff above was the result of one person masquerading as several to provoke responses their poor understanding of the subject didn't merit. If you wish to tag the article POV, you'll need to explain here where the tone slips into POV - please quote exactly from the article and explain why you regard that as POV. This is exactly what the policy you linked to states that you should do - specifically:
 * "Then, under this new section, clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article. Be active and bold in improving the article." You've done none of this as things stand, and until or unless you do, I believe that there's a consensus to remove any POV tags that get put on the article. Such tags should only stay up "until there is a consensus that it should be removed." Nmg20 15:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The following are some snippets from editors or passers-by who think the article is biased, in the last few months (and I'm not wading through the entire tract above looking for every comment, pro or contra, made by every editor):

Recently, particularly to do with 'causes' versus 'statistically associated with' or some similar:
 * 1) "This is a horrible article that's totally biased." (Anonymous, replied to by Nmg20 14 Dec 06)
 * 2) I did not think Wikipedia could get any worse, but this is the most POV piece of shit article I have ever read. Did the anti-smoking lobby groups write the whole thing? (user:Pzg Ratzinger, circa Nov 06, accused by the owners apparent of having a 'hidden agenda')
 * 3) I don't see any arguments toward the other side of this, so I'm putting put a notification. DO NOT remove it until there is a general consensus of both sides that the article is neutral (76.181.12.98 10:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC))
 * 1) Accuracy is sacrificed to political agenda, scientific findings are misquoted and blown out of proportion, and words are chosen not for their semantic accuracy but rather because of the emotional and agenda-ridden baggage they carry (Rosenkreuz 20:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC))
 * 2) BlowingSmoke & "friends"
 * 3) But it is a stretch to say it causes death, because for most people exposed to second-hand smoke, it does not. (Guy (Help!) 12:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC))
 * 4) I would have thought that it is pretty clear to most people that the claim "causes death, disease and disability" must be inaccurate for if it were an accurate statement then everyone exposed to passive smoking would die from passive smoking. (Munta 15:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC))
 * 5) This effectively states that anyone who breathes in second-hand smoke will die or develop a disease SOLELY because of this. Can you not write an article about passive smoking without the anti-smoking brigade determining what the text is? (195.157.52.65 16:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC))
 * 6) This article need to be more objective (70.130.138.210 15:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC))
 * 7) Myself, and
 * 8) A few arbitrary others

Those who seem to be comfortable with the article as it stands are:
 * 1) Dessources
 * 2) Plumbago
 * 3) Nmg20
 * 4) ONUnicorn
 * 5) Smokeresearcher, and
 * 6) A few arbitrary others

Thus, if we are to take all of these opinions into account, there may not be 'consensus' (i.e. unanimous approval) for putting an NPOV banner on the article, but there are certainly are sufficient dissenting voices to make it appropriate.

What is also disconcerting is the manner in which Dessources, Nmg20, et al, are constant, long term editors on this article, who, whenever a new editor comes along with a complaint, quickly shout them down with 'consensus' (i.e. each other) - if all the other editors listed above were to act simultaneously, as the people who are comfortable with the article do, things would be very different and disputes would operate differently as well. A single person working on their own is likely to be labeled a 'tendentious editor' or crank, but if they outnumber the regulars, it is the regulars who start looking tendentious.

So, I am putting up a tag again, to do with the very specific dispute, which is recurring, that there is not sufficient substantiation to use 'causes', and that the neutral, scientifically accurate term to use would be something like 'is statistically associated with an increased risk of'. There are a number of other points which I intend to raise once this first dispute is settled.

I would like to ask the 'regulars' here (whom I won't call a clique again) to please discuss this issue seriously, refraining from strawmen and other bully-boy tactics like I have seen above. It is important to remember that the issue is not whether any sources have used the word 'cause' - obviously some have. However, many other sources use some verbiage to do with statistical association. It is not acceptable to choose 'cause' simply based on one's own predilections, or because it is the stronger, more emotional word which is in line with one's own beliefs on smoking.

Let me put it like this. Suppose that out of 1 000 000 people, every year some 15 commit acts of terrorism, some 100 000 are Muslims, and 12 of the 15 terrorists are Muslims. Indeed, were we to conduct a census of the world, we may well find a similar statistical pattern (which also roughly mirrors the smoking situation, the exact numbers being unimportant, but rather their relative magnitudes). Would it be fair and neutral to include in the article on Islam the statement that 'Islam causes terrorism', even if we could point to scholarly sources (and there are many) which say this? Would it not be more accurate, more neutral, more sterile, more clinical, to say that 'statistically, most cases of terrorism are associated with Islam'? What makes this case different? And even assuming that some biochemical pathway has been discovered which firmly proves that chemicals in tobacco smoke can be linked to cancer and other diseases, this is no different to 'proving' (which is easy) that many cases of terrorism are 'caused' by attending speeches by radical Islamic leaders. The point is that the number of cases of exposure far outnumber the number of incidences of unpleasantness, thus making statistical association a more pertinent and accurate observation than a claim of causation.

It is neither scientifically nor semantically accurate to use the word 'cause' as it is used in this article. It's that simple. The case could be made equally strongly that the issue is not one of neutrality, but rather of factual accuracy. If people feel that this is the case, we can easily change the tag to reflect this. --AcetylcholineAgonist 16:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok - I'm going to come straight out and say that I think you're User:BlowingSmoke come back to waste a bit more of everyone's time. For someone claiming to be a new editor at Wikipedia, you sure have a long and well-formed opinion of this article's edit history, your tone is just as confrontational as the aforementioned user's, and your timing would coincide with the end of his ban.
 * However, I'm assuming good faith for now - so if you want to tag the article as NPOV, follow Wikipedia guidelines on doing so. I've outlined them for you above - and I'm going to ignore all the accusations you make about my responses on this page, specifically that I and others "shout people down", use "bully-boy" tactics, and am motivated by my "own predilections" and a liking for "stronger, more emotional word[s]".
 * I've already outlined my objections to changing "cause" to "is associated with" numerous times above; they boil down to the fact that every respected scientific journal and publication out there uses "cause" in association with passive smoking. That being the case, your opinion of the word and your politically-charged example are irrelevant - what matters here are the sources which Wikipedia allows us to use to support edits to articles. Nmg20 16:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I am most certainly not BlowingSmoke. As my IP address will attest, I am South African.  I'm not sure where he's from, but I really would be surprised if he were South African as well, and then I would concede that things look dubious.  And I doubt that anyone would be insane enough to travel to a foreign country just to indulge in a bit of japery on Wikipedia.
 * The reason that I am familiar with this article's edit history is that I didn't just jump in to cause shit, but rather read through this page first, and I am disgusted by what I have seen here.
 * The 'sources which Wikipedia allows us to use to support edits to articles' could support either 'causes' or 'statistical association'. You know this.  Not every source uses 'cause', even in respectable publications.  Nothing short of a review of the entirety of the literature on ETS, counting how many use each turn of phrase, could establish a clear 'winner'. So we have to use common sense and rational thinking.
 * Thus, could you explain exactly why my example doesn't work? --AcetylcholineAgonist 17:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * My impression was based it on your having appeared exactly at the end of said user's ban, and posted pretty much the exact same stuff he was interested in - but I'll take you at your word.
 * You say that the sources Wikipedia allows us to use could support either wording. Three of the first four references, all of which are appropriate for inclusion, use "causes", and these are exactly the sort of multinational, easily accessible references which should be guiding the wording of an encyclopaedia article.
 * Please don't take this the wrong way - but I've outlined my objections to changing the wording repeatedly on this page since at least 23rd December 2006 when the topic first came up, and I haven't yet seen any attempts to discuss those - so, as I have limited time to devote to Wikipedia, I'm going to avoid adding to the discussion further by posting the same points in response to every new phrasing of the (same) question. Nmg20 17:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, let's put it like this. One study you cite repeatedly, PMID: 15552776, does indeed toss the word 'cause' around.  But, it states that 'a meta-analysis of over 50 studies on involuntary smoking among never smokers showed a consistent and statistically significant association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer risk'.  That it is the key research finding, not so?  There are many other similar examples.  The question becomes whether the statement I just quoted is semantically synonymous with 'causation'.  There are a host of good semantic, statistical, scientific and philosophical reasons why this is not the case.  Someone (I think Munta) above linked to an argument to do with this.  I am forced to ask again: why is it that the article uses one possible turn of phrase (causation) but not the other (statistical association), when the two are often found in the same article, but it is not universally established that the two are synonymous?  Can you provide a citation that explicitly proves that these two terms are synonymous?  If so, I'll concede the point.  If not, then I am afraid you have not yet settled the issue.
 * On a similar note, the article grossly oversimplifies the facts, and in so doing, it gives them a slant. For example, it states as a fact that 'the only factor determining whether or not a given study finds ETS to be unhealthy' (or similar wording, anyway) is 'whether or not its author is affiliated with the tobacco industry'.  It cites this study PMID: 9605902 as support for that claim.  First, the study does not lend support to that claim, unless it is statistically qualified as the authors did, with a confidence interval (which is pretty damned broad, as it happens).  However, the conclusion of the study, from the abstract, is that 'The conclusions of review articles are strongly associated with the affiliations of their authors'.  This would imply that just as it is possible (likely, perhaps) that if a researcher is affiliated with the tobacco industry, their research would be slanted, at the same time, if a researcher is affiliated with an anti-smoking campaign, public health authorities, etc., their research may be slanted in that direction.  And it is not for Wikipedia or its editors to deem one particular slant better than any other, surely?  This is just one example among many.


 * I haven't much time to devote to this morass either, so I simply cannot work through the article sentence by sentence. But there are many more examples of subtle slants and biases throughout the article.


 * Finally, you say that the first few references support 'cause'. You state that they are 'multinational'.  They are not: 2 of the 3 which use the word 'cause' are publications of the U.S. Government or its agencies.  All three publications are put out by governmental or quasi-governmental sources (the other being WHO), and not a single one is peer-reviewed.  Now, it may be that you are of the opinion that the scholarship exhibited by those sources is of a high standard.  But your opinion doesn't count (nor does any other, single person's).  What counts is the opinion of the scientific community, as exemplified by the peer review process.  Those references fail to meet that standard, and are thus completely inappropriate for establishing one of the 'main claims' of the article.  Unless you can provide a citation stating that the U.S. Department of Health is recognised as being an authentic spokeperson for the scientific community, that is. --AcetylcholineAgonist 19:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I accept that many of the scientific papers use "is associated with a significant increase in risk" just as many use "causes". The article here on wikipedia also uses both - at a rough count (leaving out references unrelated to causes of disease or death e.g. in the "industry responses" section):
 * "increases risk" or a near variant appears 30 times in the article.
 * "causes" appears 7 times, and I think it's worth reiterating where and why (emphases are mine):
 * In the introductory paragraph: "passive exposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability". This is backed up by references which use that specific wording.
 * "secondhand smoke [...] causes the same problems as direct smoking" (Long-term effects, supported by reference 5)
 * "making it the 3rd leading cause of preventable death in the U.S." (Long-term effects, supported by reference 31, which I don't have to hand to check wording)
 * "estimating that 3,000 lung cancer related deaths in the U.S. were caused by passive smoking every year" (The Osteen Decision, supported by reference 9, which uses 'cause' repeatedly)
 * "The study finds that passive smoke also causes sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) [etc]" (Risk Level of Passive Smoking, reference 51, which uses cause but is a newspaper article; I don't have the primary source to hand to check)
 * "involuntary smoking causes lung cancer in humans." (ditto, reference 49, direct quote from IARC report)
 * "In France passive smoking has been shown to cause between 3000 and 5000 premature deaths per year" (Epidemiological studies, reference 44, uses 'cause')
 * That means:
 * (1) the balance in the article is already tipped towards the wording you favour by a factor of 4:1.
 * (2) where "causes" does appear, it appears because that is what the relevant references say themselves.
 * (3) To change it would be to misrepresent what those studies said. Nmg20 20:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that the most accurate wording would be "can cause", as the causal link is clear but by no means universal. SonoftheMorning 01:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"may cause" would be even better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.30.12 (talk)


 * I can see User:SonoftheMorning's point - but stand by the current wording. Where the article uses simply "cause", it's because the articles it is citing do so, and to change that is altering what those articles said. Nmg20 18:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Please, please, PLEASE -- just change the wording, especially in the opening section. It's quite clear from complaint after complaint (add my own to the list) that "cause" is far too strong a term in the contexts in which it has been used here, on such a controversial topic as this. Slightly more verbosity is required in this case to lessen the likelihood of misinterpretation which, as should be clear by now, is very real. I have no agenda to promote in either direction on this topic but a crystal clear (but not necessarily intended) bias towards anti-smoking sentiments presents itself in reading this article, which simply isn't appropriate for Wikipedia, irrespective of what more emotive turns of phrase some of its sources might themselves use. I second the call for an NPOV tag until all occurrences of "cause/causes" in this article (unless directly quoting those sources that use them) are replaced with less ambiguous alternatives, such as the suggested "are/is statistically associated with an increased risk of". Mixsynth 23:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

They won't change it, because they aren't interested in an accurate, unbiased article. Rather, they are pursuing some kind of twisted crusade toward a social agenda. Saying that secondhand smoke "causes" deadly disease is even more outrageous than saying "hard work causes great wealth" or "dining at buffets causes obesity". Of course either of the two preceding statements could be true; in certain cases they are true, but in most cases they are not. The same standard should apply here, but sadly it does not. It is irrelevant that the term is used by "authoritative" sources when those sources are corrupt and fraudulent, using such statements to advance social engineering and to create fear among the people. The proof is obvious and those who dispute it place their own credibility at peril. For example, (in the USA) OSHA has established clear and measurable standards for air quality in the workplace. Nearly half of the states have now banned smoking in most workplaces in order to "protect the workforce" from the "hazards" of passive smoke, even though objective air quality tests have not shown that smoking indoors raises air contaminants to levels above OSHA permissible exposure limits. In other words, the movement is not really concerned with air quality in the workplace (which would be understandable); rather, they are only concerned with whether or not there is any tobacco smoking going on. A place of business could have better air quality while allowing smoking than another that does not (based on ventilation, filtration and other factors). But this is irrelevant to their cause. As for this article, I would even like to see the source quoted in the opening paragraph itself (the W.H.O. SAYS/claims that passive smoke causes...). That would be fair enough, but I suppose there would be objections to that as well. Some here want it to read as if it is an undisputed fact (which it is not). 71.72.217.102 08:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What can I say in the face of such rational, intelligent, well-thought out argument?
 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Really. It isn't.
 * You need to assume good faith in your dealings with others here. Accusing people you've never met of "pursuing some kind of twisted crusade blah blah blah" isn't really doing that.
 * Your "proof" is neither obvious nor credible - in fact, it's original research, in that it's just a synthesis of your own opinions. Guess what? That's also exactly the sort of rubbish wikipedia policy means doesn't go into its articles.
 * Please spare us any further posts like the above, and go read Wikipedia's pillars, eh? Nmg20 09:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

What you can say is nothing. I understand that it is my right to question the neutrality of this article; that is exactly what I am doing, and I believe I am doing it in the proper place (this discussion). To quote as indisputable fact "authoritative" sources whose conclusions defy common sense (and use "evidence" so far outside of scientific norms) is the height of deception. It is difficult to assume good faith when some ignore the very good ideas previously given (by others) to make this article more balanced, no matter how reasonable the argument. There is a reason why the anti-tobacco movement uses questionnaires and cooked numbers rather than objective air quality tests in their intrusive campaign. Wonder why? I don't. 71.72.217.102 02:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No, really - you need to read WP:SOAP, WP:NOR, and WP:PILLARS. Honestly. They will help you understand the nature of this project: it is nothing like what you want it to be. In addition, your characterisation of the wealth of scientific evidence referenced in the article suggests your grasp of "scientific norms" and indeed "common sense" is exceedingly tenuous. Nmg20 11:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I acquiesce that this is not the forum to attack the research. What I strongly object to, once again, is how this research is presented as factual, beyond reproach and not in dispute. That is exactly how this article reads. I think it is quite significant that health and medical authorities cannot find air samples with contaminant levels above OSHA PEL's - even in bars and night clubs, where smoking is/was usually the most prevalent. Using relative risk estimates, the former Surgeon General in his report disclosed a pooled estimate of 1.22 for workplace exposure (chapter 7, page 439). Many people might think this is significant without the following information: The National Cancer Institute states, “Relative risks of less than 2 are considered small and are usually difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias, or the effect of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident." Robert Temple, director of drug evaluation at the Food and Drug Administration said, “My basic rule is if the relative risk isn't at least 3 or 4, forget it." And an editor for the New England Journal of Medicine said, "As a general rule of thumb, we are looking for a relative risk of 3 or more before accepting a paper for publication." In spite of this, the former Surgeon General concluded, “The scientific evidence is now indisputable: secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance. It is a serious health hazard that can lead to disease and premature death in children and nonsmoking adults.” It may be worth including the apparent hypocrisy in the article. Why such a different standard here? Nmg20, I understand that you and I are on opposite sides of this issue. But the article is not neutral by any means. It does not sufficiently acknowledge the controversy that exists, even though Dr. Carmona declared "the debate is over". That is wishful thinking on his part...the debate is far from over. 71.72.217.102 01:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but Wikipedia is not the forum for you to continue the debate. If you think it's worth "including the apparent hypocrisy", find a reliable source and quote it in a way that does not violate WP:WEIGHT. Right now, scientific consensus is that passive smoking is harmful. Wikipedia needs to report that consensus accurately, not provide a forum to debate or change it. That's what others are trying to get across to you. MastCell Talk 21:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Just FYI, the statement "As a general rule of thumb, we are looking for a relative risk of 3 or more before accepting a paper for publication" was blatantly taken out of context and is very prevalent among anti tobacco ban groups. The exact full sentence is "As a general rule of thumb, we are looking for a relative risk of three or more before accepting a paper for publication, particularly if it is biologically implausible or if it’s a brand-new finding." Also, the tone of the article they are sourcing from  is portrayed very differently by them. if we really need to cite the quotation, we need be sure to cite the whole sentence from the original article --priyadi 05:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The real problem with this entry is that 'passive smoking' is a term with a recent history, co-opted by many in the scientific and medical communities to describe something they study - this should be made clear in the entry. If wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, it cannot read like a 'good health' brochure. The focus must be on where the term orginated (this is entirely absent, unfortunately), who or what group employs it (this is rather vaguely delineated), and what they mean by it. It's really not that complicated. Encyclopedic entries should not be moral tracts. For those of you riled by accusations of 'anti-smoking bias,' read an entry such as, say, 'expressionism' - you will read about a concept, the major players involved in the concept, the historical trajectory of the concept, and its contemporary influence. The fact that 'passive smoking' gives no sense of history at all (in an enclyclopedia!) - other than the notion that it is now recognised as bad - tells us we are already in deep trouble here.

Gee, I have been reading through the discussion page here, and I feel I have to add this. The purpose of the entry is not to decide whether 'passive smoking' is 'really' what some say it is or it isn't. The purpose of the entry is to describe the concept and illustrate its significance - an encyclopedia is a cultural record, not an edition of the Lancet. Or a government health pamphlet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.29.0.163 (talk • contribs)


 * No, it doesn't read like a "good health brochure". It's an encyclopedia article and it contains scientifically agreed-upon facts. Passive smoking causes health problems. That's a fact - it has no moral dimension to it, other than the one that contrarians want to assign it having lost the scientific argument. The article does "define passive smoking and illustrate its significance". This is a health-related issue. This is not expressionism, which is an aesthetic movement whose origins and historical significance are paramount. It's fine to mention that some contrarian opinion still exists, provided it's not assigned undue weight - and since essentially every major health organization agrees that passive smoking is harmful, the amount of space given fringe opinion should be minimal. MastCell Talk 19:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to add to what MastCell has said that 'passive smoking' isn't some sort of marketing term - it's not a term which was plucked from the air to give researchers something to do. The term originated as a way of describing an effect which had been observed since smoking began - you can see the smoke coming out the cigarettes, for heavens sakes! As to all the stuff about "what group employs it" - anyone who wants to describe the fairly simple mechanics of smoke leaving the end of a cigarette "employs" it...
 * The idea that Wikipedia should restrict itself to your concept of a "cultural record" is at odds with its stated aims and with the concomitant number of projects dedicated to medical articles (WP:MED, WP:CLINMED, WP:PHARM, for instance) and with guidelines on the inclusion of research (WP:V, WP:MEDMOS, WP:RELY), etc. Nmg20 23:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think what the contributor was saying is that while passive smoke is not new, the concept is - particularly the concept that it is dangerous to one's health. That being said, the article is so hopelessly riddled with propaganda and gobbledygook that I don't know where to begin. For example, please examine the following statements, the first from the article, and the second from the US Congress (cited in the article, number 64 I believe): (Wikipedia) "The effect of passive smoking on lung cancer has been extensively studied. Studies...have consistently shown a significant increase in relative risk among those exposed to passive smoke.[citation needed]" (Congressional Research Service) "For a variety of reasons, EPA's conclusions have been controversial. While many in the scientific community have accepted the EPA conclusions, other have criticized them. First, the findings in the studies were mixed, and of the 30 studies examined by EPA...24 found an increased risk, though only five were statistically significant at the 95 percent level, and six actually found a negative risk (with one statistically significant). Of the eleven U.S. studies, eight found a positive risk and three found a negative risk, though none was statistically significant." Folks, this is the reason for the controversy. Some of you may think I am simple minded, but I don't think that is "consistent" nor "significant". THE STATEMENT IN THE ARTICLE IS POV. 71.72.217.102 03:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That's the whole point of Meta-analysis. You combine samples from several studies and make statistical analysis from them, regardless of what the original studies say. If it's like what you say that 24 found increased risk and 6 found negative risk, so it is really not surprising the conclusion yields increased risk. Also, the EPA study was done in 1992, 15 years ago. There are other studies that are far newer and this article already sources quite a few of them. --priyadi 05:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Not propaganda nor gobbledegook, nor POV. A scientific consensus exists. The article attempts to reflect it. Wikipedia works as intended. MastCell Talk 06:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, there are more studies that show increased risk than decreased risk, BUT 1) The reults are all over the place 2) Only 5 out of the 30 (1 in 6) studies show statistically increased risk, and 3) one shows statistically significant decreased risk.  Obviously, one can draw any conclusions that he or she likes from something like this.  But to say that the studies are consistent, or consistently significant, is simply false...hence my point (which seems to have been overlooked).
 * If one combines results from recent studies, the results are remarkably similar: 24 in 149 found statistically significant increased risk (about 1 of every 6.2 studies). I'm not trying to include 'original research' here; just mentioning to Priyadi that things haven't changed much since '92. So the article makes a statement which is not sourced and is false.  Just wondering if anyone even cares. 71.72.217.102 17:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "All over the place" is your interpretation of them; the scientists who did the analyses concluded differently. You would *expect* some studies to find no or even negative risk by statistical chance - that's the whole reason for doing meta-analyses. The point of them, as the article says, is to weight the larger studies appropriately and draw a conclusion based on the whole body of research data out there. Beyond that, all of what you've posted above is your interpretation of different figures and so is original research; and if it were in fact the case any budding epidemiologist or statistician could have made their name by pointing it out in the scientific press. With respect, the fact that they haven't suggests to me that you aren't interpreting the data properly. Nmg20 21:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe I should have used the words of the U.S. Congress: the results were "mixed" and have "generated considerable controversy". Your parsing of words may be a disservice to this medium.  I would not expect some studies to find no risk or negative risk for something rising to the level of a national health hazard.  I would expect to find consistent, statistically significanct increase in risk (some higher than others, of course).  Therefore, your patronizing is unnecessary as my method of interpreting data is most reasonable.71.72.217.102 04:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If you wanted to include them in the article, then yes you should have used the words of the U.S. Congress - which, given that you accuse me of "parsing words", I feel obliged to point out were emphatically not "all over the place". As I said above, those are your words and so don't belong in the article - if you take my pointing that out and explaining why it is so as patronising, that's too bad. My intention was to explain something which some readers of the talk page might not understand, not to patronise you; WP:Assume good faith should have been your first port of call here.
 * Do you have a reference for that U.S. Congress report, please? Nmg20 13:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming he's referring to the Congressional Research Project's gloss on the EPA report (referenced in the article). Which was 14 years ago. There have been quite a few developments since then, and those conclusions (which were generally in favor of the EPA's conclusion, anyway) are outdated. Passive smoking's harmful effects are no longer "considerably controversial"; essentially all tobacco companies have admitted them. Wikipedia is not a venue for advocacy or original research; the scientific/medical community's conclusions are clear and have been accepted even by the tobacco industry. If you disagree with them, that's your right, but this is not the venue to try and advance your position. MastCell Talk 16:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Nmg20, the link to the Congressional Report is number 64 in the footnotes at the time of this comment. You should be able to locate it there, though the format is hard to read (it doesn't fit well on the screen).  I ask that you and/or your friend give evidence that the Congress "generally endorsed" the EPA study, or that assessment of it will be deleted as well.  I have read the report a couple of times and have (honestly) come to a different conclusion.  Take a look, and see what I mean.  MastCell (who chose to report me without warning), the only tobacco companies that have accepted such conclusions are those who took part in the Master Settlement Agreement (by coercion or to avoid being put out of business).  As far as I know, non-US based companies have not rubber stamped the WHO, the SG and the EPA.  On another note, what significant developments have there been since '92-'93?  The more recent research I've looked at is remarkably consistent (as far as I can tell, and as noted above). 71.72.217.102 05:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you - I looked for it first in your post here from 3rd June, where it's tagged [citation needed].
 * It is interesting that you assume that User:MastCell, who I've never met, is my "friend" merely because he shares my opinions. Does the fact that no one's supporting your views mean you don't have any friends? I would suggest not, so please don't assume that the reason multiple people are disagreeing with you is because we're all great mates - the simpler and more accurate explanation is that, quite independently, lots of people disagree with you.
 * In terms of why the Congressional Report "generally endorsed" the EPA study - it acknowledges:
 * (1) That many of the EPA's conclusions were correct, e.g. "The results presented by these studies indicate that if there is any risk of developing lung cancer from exposure to ETS, it increases as the exposure level increases."
 * (2) That the problems with the data come from the nature of ETS epidemiology studies and not from the EPA use of them (sections on bias)
 * (3) They acknowledge that the EPA's use of meta-analysis was the best technique to use in coming to a conclusion, and criticise those bodies who haven't performed meta-analyses (e.g. in lung cancer discussion)
 * (4) Essentially, the only criticism seems to be that they didn't clarify the risk as far as they could have done: "Although this approach is valid, and is superior to just counting up the studies, it still does not entirely clarify the risk."
 * In summary, yes they do say that the results of the studies used in the meta-analyses were "mixed" - but they whole-heartedly endorse meta-analysis as the tool of choice here. They do acknowledge "considerable controversy" - but only in the handling of dose-response data (which they acknowledge was only present in some of the studies used in the meta-analysis). In the overall assessment of their conclusions, this is toned down considerably: "EPA's findings have received much support from the scientific community, but have been criticized by other scientists, statisticians and the tobacco industry."
 * In terms of what important work there has been since 92-93, I'd refer you to references 7, 11-13, 15-17, 19, 26-30, 32-35, 38-42, etc. All these have been published in the interim. Nmg20 09:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

By "friend", I mean your acquaintance from Wikipedia who shares your views and agenda. I'm sorry to have neglected the parsing issue once again by my use of the term. It's also quite obvious that on this page there are a number of people who disagree with you and your acquaintance. If you like, you may call those people my friends; no offense will be taken from that (I promise). With regard to the EPA report and the CRS, you have laid out a weak case for "general endorsement". I'm not saying that to be critical; what I'm saying is that it is obviously nothing more (and nothing less) than a thorough discussion of the report and the results therein. They mention the good and the bad. For whatever reason, they are even deign to factually state (agree) that ETS poses significant risk. Regarding the more recent studies, I have noticed them and I thank you for the information. The point is that the results are indeed very consistent to those from the 80's and early 90's. Does anyone know of specific events or developments that caused a consensus (among medical and health authorities) to form around what these results mean?71.72.217.102 04:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a very curious definition of "friend" - but there we go. Regardless, I don't see many people arguing the same position as you on this issue, so I don't really see where you're claiming the support for your views and agenda from?
 * You're misrepresenting the more recent data. Taylor et al 2001 note "since 1992 the RR has been greater than 1.25", and the studies of subgroups (children etc) are all compelling (e.g. Janson 2004, Kallio et al 2007 , as posted by User:MastCell). It simply isn't true to characterise the last 15 years of research as inconsistent - it's not. Nmg20 09:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What my close friend Nmg20 said. If you want more hot-off-the-presses studies, there's (which we should probably add to the article). Since 1992-1993, a number of major medical organizations have concluded that passive smoking is harmful, a conclusion which has been accepted by major tobacco companies and the public (in the form of smoking bans). The tobacco companies may have been compelled to publicly admit the link by litigation, but the declassified Philip Morris and other internal documents show they were aware of and accepted the existence of the link long before, and sought to sow doubt or downplay it. As far as your violation of WP:3RR, you've been around long enough to know better, but now you've been officially warned not to edit-war. MastCell Talk 17:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * MastCell, I've not only been warned, I was reported. Apparently, you failed to first read my apology and disclosure that I did not know of such a rule.  Perhaps you can learn something as well...in the future, why not just educate someone first?  You seem to do so well at educating people on a number of issues.  It's really very impressive
 * By the way, do you have more information about the tobacco industry accusation? It seems pretty important.71.72.217.102 04:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If I may, I went on WP to find a little information on second-hand smoke, and was rather surprised at the content of this article. Impartiality is a rather tall order when such high-exposure issues are concerned, but I found this article heavy-handed, and difficult to accept at face value, even given its sources.  To put this article into perspective, take a stroll to the one describing the controversy relating to the atomic bombing of Nagasaki:  Both view points are presented, clearly, convincingly, and the reader is left to decide for him/herself.  In this case, every single mention of doubt as to the findings of severe harm is suffixed or prefixed with "but this opposes the general view".  It is not respected practice, in assessing research literature, to wrap every claim in an anti-claim and then suggest that a forthright approach had been taken.  I could, for example, add the phrase "this is disputed by a number of studies referenced below" to every single claim in the "effects" paragraphs, or the "epidemiological" portion, but it lends no credence to the opposing viewpoint there, as it also fails to do in the latter case.  I suggest that either this, rather strong and obvious, bias be removed to make this article a little more informative for those of us who are actually concerned with receiving a balanced set of facts, and making up our own minds. 74.123.79.112 03:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. You have eloquently stated one of the main reasons that the article is in official mediation and bears the "Point of View" tag.Chido6d 02:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well said. Science is never decided by consensus and politics. It is decided by facts. We would do well to earnestly present both sides of this very controversial issue since it is - well - very controversial to say the least.Whoscience 09:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Very controversial? Scientifically? I don't think so. There are dozens of solid sources attesting to the scientific consensus on the topic. Every medical and scientific organization considers the science to be solid and correct. It's necessary to do more than assert that one thinks a topic is controversial - per Wikipedia's policies, we need reliably sourced, verifiable evidence that a significant portion of the scientific community considers this controversial. Such evidence has not been produced, despite a lengthy discussion which you see before you. MastCell Talk 05:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The science is correct but the artical lacks perspective. It's not the figures which are incorrect it's the manner in which they're presented. The writing is presented with a very strong anti-smoking bias. For example the artical clearly asserts the increased risks of heart disease. What it doesn't tell you is that the increase is negligible. Both the National Cancer Institute and the World Health Orginization have stated that Relative Risk Ratios lower than 2.0 are too low to be reliable. David Hitt, author of Statistics 101, states: “As a rule of thumb, a RR of at least 2.0 is necessary to indicate a cause and effect relationship, and a RR of 3.0 is preferred.” An increased risk of thirty percent, as stated in the artical, means the Relative Risk Ratio is only 1.3. The authors of this artical fail to explain any of this but instead try to put the statistic in terms that make the risk sound particularly threatening. So as you can see the problem is not the accuracy of the the scientific figures stated in the articl, but the perspective that is not given to those relativistic figures.

Evanmcdonnal Talk 4:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Evan, welcome to wikipedia. Others have raised similar concerns, and I encourage you to read through this page and the archives to find out why these concerns are unfounded. Briefly, David Hitt's webpage does not qualify as a reliable source under wikipedia guidelines, and neither the NCI nor the WHO actually hold the positions that you claim. Someone (I can't remember if it was Hitt, or Steven Milloy, or someone else) pulled some quotes grossly out of context and started that fallicy. Anyways, we been through this before, and it's all here on this talk page somewhere.... Yilloslime (t) 00:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Welcome, Evan. I believe what you were referring to are principles for interpreting relative risk. The National Cancer Institute states, “Relative risks of less than 2 are considered small and are usually difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias, or the effect of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident." Robert Temple, director of drug evaluation at the Food and Drug Administration said, “My basic rule is if the relative risk isn't at least 3 or 4, forget it."  And Marcia Angell, Editor of the New England Journal of Medicine said, "As a general rule of thumb, we are looking for a relative risk of 3 or more before accepting a paper for publication."
 * While all of these (unlike Hitt and Milloy) qualify as reliable sources, the principles as stated apparently do not refer to ETS specifically and are therefore not suitable for inclusion in the article.
 * You could, however, include the exact same principle when it does refer to ETS specifically, and see what happens. For example, Dr. Geoffrey Kabat said, "An association is generally considered weak if the odds ratio (relative risk) is under 3.0 and particularly when it is under 2.0, as is the case in the relationship of ETS and lung cancer." Chido6d 03:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Come on, let's not do this again. You are surely aware of the large volume of literature detailing the abuse of that "relative risks <2" claim as specifically applied to passive smoking, since we've gone over them endlessly. In repeating the claim about relative risks <2 as applied to passive smoking, Kabat was repeating the party line of the tobacco industry, which funded his work. A more, dare I say, candid assessment of this line of argument was provided by Ted Sanders of Philip Morris Worldwide Scientific Affairs, in a confidential report:
 * "[Philip Morris] Corporate Affairs thought it was a wonderful idea, because at first they . . . felt that part of a code for Good Epidemiological Practices would state that any relative risk of less than 2 would be ignored. This is of course not the case. No epidemiological organization would agree to this, and even Corporate Affairs realizes this now. (see )"
 * Dave Hitt indeed... MastCell Talk 04:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree with MastCell. The idea that RR<2 is not significant is utter crap, and in most statistical cases you actually have a p value associated with the RR (or value for beta, or whatever you're using) which *tells* you if it's significant. So the next person to post saying "but an infamously tobacco-industry-funded, since-discredited stooge once said relative risk less than 2 didn't matter because it was only a bit more likely to kill you" gets sent on a statistics 101 course. Particularly if they do so at the end of about three dozen posts on this exact topic without reading them. Thank you. Nmg20 19:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What Dr. Kabat said seems very similar (and completely harmonious) to the statement by the National Cancer Institute. Can someone help me with the difference? Chido6d 03:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No, because your question is obviously disingenuous. I have no doubt you are well aware of the National Cancer Institute's position on passive smoking, but for the record: "The 1986 Report of the Surgeon General... and the 1992 U.S. EPA report have established that ETS exposure causes lung cancer. Results from recent epidemiological studies are compatible with the causal association already established." We should actually add to the article that the NCI, like several other major medical bodies, has vindicated the EPA's findings. MastCell Talk 05:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the question was not disingenuous -- and though I resent the accusation, I will not take it personally. I would honestly like to know if the apparent contradiction has ever been specifically addressed. Without a doubt, the EPA's findings are very consistent with similar studies. I believe I have pointed this out in the past. Chido6d 12:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. Relative risks less than 2 do indeed require careful scrutiny; the comments from the NCI and FDA indicate that the burden of proof is substantially higher for small RR's. That careful scrutiny has been applied, in spades, to the relative risk of passive smoking. The association between ETS and disease has been reproduced in a wide variety of studies, with a wide variety of methodologies, after adjustment for a wide variety of confounders including publication bias, in a wide variety of settings, using both self-reported and biomarker-based quanitification of exposure, and is backed by strong biological plausibility - and the relative risk consistently comes out in the same narrow range (see for example, which also addresses the constant reference to the risk as of ETS as "small": "Although the excess risk from exposure to passive smoking is small, the high prevalence of exposure to passive smoking in workplaces, restaurants and other public areas in some countries, as well as at home and in private automobiles, make it an important risk factor for lung cancer among non-smoking people.")
 * The NCI's statement suggests that small relative risk increases require more careful scrutiny and more voluminous evidence in order to be believable. However, it's clear that in the case of passive smoking, that higher bar has been met and exceeded in the opinion of not only the NCI but every other medical and scientific organization which has looked at the question. A "contradiction" exists only if one takes the comments about RR <2 out of context; I should not have speculated about your motives, but this has certainly been exploited disingenuously by others in the past. MastCell Talk 18:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for an honest (and complete) answer to an honest question. I'm not sure I'm buying it (no fault of yours) -- one would think that science would consider the "prevalence of exposure" as a part of the overall RR. I've never heard of such a distinction being made; it merits further investigation. Chido6d 04:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Fairly obviously, it's not part of the RR, it's part of the importance of the risk, as stated. A 30 per cent increase in lung cancer risk for a large part of the population implies many more deaths a 30 per cent increase arising from a hazard to which very few people are exposed. More generally, Chido6d, unless you want to publish your views in peer-reviewed journals, the question of whether you are or are not convinced by the scientific evidence is of zero relevance (see the top of the page). The purpose of the article is to report the current state of knowledge, as assessed by reliable sources (in this context, WHO, EPA and so on). JQ 05:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"Current scientific evidence shows that exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability"
At the risk of repeating arguments which have been covered already at length on this talk page, I am restating the case for the current formulation in the summary section of the article.

The causal link between exposure to tobacco smoke and diseases, disability and death has been the subject of intensive and extensive research, and long and in-depth discussions by the scientific community for at least two decades. It appears that today, the worldwide scientific and public health communities agree overwhelmingly that passive smoking is indeed the cause of disease, disability and death. In reporting this fact, we, Wikipedia editors, must adopt a neutral point of view, and the best way at our disposal to guarantee such a NPOV approach is by citing verifiable and authoritative sources.

This is what is being done in the summary section, which bases its finely crafted wording on four references. These four references are currently the four most authoritative sources of information on passive smoking. Each one arrives at the conclusion that there is a causal relation between exposure to passive smoking and diseases, leading either to death or disability.


 * WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control - This is the first international treaty on public health, adopted in May 2003 by 192 countries and signed by 168. Its text has been the subject of intense negotiations, which have lasted several years and has involved the contributions of some of the best public health experts of the world. Its Article 8.1 states "Parties recognize that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco causes death, disease and disability." (emphasis added) This formulation has been elaborated with great care, not by "anti-tobacco zealots", but by ministers of health and their representatives of virtually all countries of the world. It would be hard to find a more authoritative and consensual formulation.


 * U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. "The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General", 2006 - One of the major conclusions of the Surgeon General Report is: "Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke." (emphasis added)


 * California Environmental Protection Agency: Air Resources Board, "Proposed Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant" (June 24, 2005) - The CalEPA reports states its finding in its executive summary as follows "ETS exposure is causally associated with a number of health effects, including effects on infants and children.". It provides a list of 26 "developmental, respiratory, carcinogenic and cardiovascular effects for which there is sufficient evidence of a causal relationship." (emphasis added)


 * WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer "Tobacco Smoke and Involuntary Smoking" IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Vol. 83, 2002 - The evaluation of the Monograph is: "There is sufficient evidence that involuntary smoking (exposure to secondhand or 'environmental' tobacco smoke) causes lung cancer in humans." (emphasis added) This assessment is made by a group comprising 25 of the world's top experts in cancer research, epidemiology and tobacco control.

The importance and significance of these references is emphasized in a recent communication by the World Health Organization :

There is no doubt: breathing second-hand tobacco smoke (SHS) is very dangerous to your health. It causes cancer, as well as many serious respiratory and cardiovascular diseases in children and adults, often leading to death. There is no safe level of human exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke.

These are the indisputable conclusions reached by international and national health authorities, backed up by extensive rigorously reviewed and published research results, over many years. Three recent major publications remind us of these facts:


 * The 2004 IARC Monograph 83: Tobacco Smoke and Involuntary Smoking
 * The 2005 California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) Environmental Health Hazard Assessment of Environmental Tobacco Smoke
 * The 2006 U.S. Surgeon General's Report on The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke

In the same communication, the World Health summarizes the result of current research by stating the following facts:

Fact 1 SHS contains thousands of identified chemicals, at least 250 of which are known to be carcinogenic or otherwise toxic. Among those chemicals and toxins are the deadly, odourless, colourless gas carbon monoxide (CO), increased levels of acetaldehyde, acrolein, formaldehyde and many other substances. When inhaled, these poisons are concentrated and quickly spread throughout the body, leading to a range of serious diseases. Fact 2 People are most exposed to tobacco smoke in the following enclosed spaces: Fact 3 Second-hand tobacco smoke (SHS) has officially been classified as carcinogenic – cancer causing – in humans. It also causes severe acute and chronic heart disease. Other adult conditions linked to SHS are bronchitis, pneumonia, asthma, and in children: lower respiratory infections, asthma, middle ear infection, sudden infant death syndrome and low birthweight for babies of women exposed to SHS during pregnancy.
 * WORK PLACES
 * PUBLIC PLACES
 * HOMES

Judge Gladys Kessler, in her Final Opinion in the case United States of America vs. Philip Morris U.S.A. Inc. produced a very detailed study on how the scientific community has reached a consensus concerning the health effects of exposure to secondhand smoke. (pages 11215-1230). Her conclusion is as follows: Using the five criteria adopted by the Surgeon General as a framework for evaluating causality [...], scientists in the public health community view the accumulation of data to determine if a causal relationship exists. In this case, the overwhelming accumulation of data demonstrates that ETS causes disease. [...] Passive exposure also causes a reduction in the rate of lung function growth during childhood, and is linked to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). [...] In adults, exposure to secondhand smoke causes lung cancer. Passive exposure causes two to three percent of all lung cancer cases in the United States. [...] Exposure to secondhand smoke can also cause coronary heart disease in adults." (page 1230-31 - emphasis added)

Judge Kessler summarizes the state of scientific knowledge about the health effects of passive smoking as follows: Since the 1986 Surgeon General's Report, every major scientific review and assessment of the science on passive smoking and its health effects has independently and consistently concluded that passive smoking causes disease and other adverse health effects in adults and children. (page 1229 - emphasis added)

If other Wikipedia editors want to change the formulation presently used in the summary section ("Current scientific evidence shows that exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability"), this is always possible, but they would have to back up their proposal with references at least as authoritative and verifiable as the references indicated above.

--Dessources 01:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually the way to settle the argument of bias opinion vs facts is for authoritative references to be found - EPA, WHO, etc who have the names of five people who have died as a result of the ETS. This should be easy since the estimates of death are anywhere from 3000 to 60000 (no one seems to know for sure) per year. Could the proponents of "death by a whiff of smoke" find those references and settle this? Otherwise it is just statistical tricks from the shouting agendas. Whoscience 10:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm going to ignore the obviousness of this oft-repeated fallacy and point out that, according to the talk page guidelines, this article talk page is not to be used as a forum for general discussion, argumentation, debate, or rhetoric. It's intended to discuss specific, concrete improvements to the article, based on the principles of verifiability, no original research, undue weight, and neutral point of view. MastCell Talk 05:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Boffetta study
has now twice inserted a false claim about the Bofetta study. Please see the JNCI editorial - the study is accurately represented, and found a modest increase in risk with home or workplace exposure in adults, and no increase in kids. Please don't insert false information or misinterpretations of sources. MastCell Talk 16:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sigh. This has a sort of hopeless feel to it. I've reported it at the 3RR noticeboard. MastCell Talk 16:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

When an odds ratio is ).78 with 95% confidence interval 0.64-0.96 then it is orthodox usage to regard it as significantly different.(0.64 and 0.96 are both less than 1). Ask any statistician (without giving the context). When the 95%CI includes 1.0 it is regarded as nonsignificant and likely due to chance. A paper which includes both significant and nonsignificant normally and naturally pays far more attention to the significant results. A paper which reported the effects of 3 drugs in disease treatment and dismissed the only one to show a significant effect would be regarded as absurd. I removed nothing from the article and added:

Correction: Reference 14, Boffetta et al, is claimed as evidence that passive smoking (PS) causes lung cancer. It is not. The results of Boffetta et al show that spousal and workplace PS have no significant effect on lung cancer rates but childhood exposure significantly reduces lung cancer rate by 22%, the reverse of what this article claims. See: http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/ cgi/content/abstract/90/ 19/1440?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=boffetta& searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=10&resourcetype=HWCIT This confirms a similar observation by Brownson et al (1992): http://members.iinet.com.au/~ray/b.html J.R.Johnstone ray@iinet.com.au http://members.iinet.com.au/~ray/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RayJohnstone (talk • contribs).


 * The study's interpretation is quoted above, from the accompanying JNCI editorial. However, if you're uncomfortable with the study being cited as showing an increase in relative risk with increased exposure to passive smoke, I suppose that could be understood as the findings were slightly more complex than are alluded to in the current text. Therefore, I've removed it and replaced it with a larger international cohort from the same authors, affirming the dose-response relationship between passive smoking and lung cancer . Hopefully that will remove the focus of controversy. MastCell Talk 21:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

No it won't. Instead of removing it why don't you say what Boffetta et al found - and Brownson et al. Do not rely on authorities, whether JNCI or anyone else. Nullius in verba. ray@iinet.com.au www.iinet.com.au/~ray Re the JNCI editorial, notice what they have to say about childhood exposure: "...there was no increase in risk associated with exposures to ETS in childhood." Quite true: there was a significant decrease. Doesn't their wording tell you something? ray@iinet.com.au www.iinet.com.au/~ray RayJohnstone 03:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Concerning the relative risk for lung cancer in nonsmokers exposed to passive smoking during childhood, the IARC Monograph, which was produced in 2004, lists 24 studies, some of which exhibiting an apparent protective effect (including the Boffetta study) and other an apparent deleterious effect. Meta analyses do not suggest an association. This question has been amply debated among experts, and we have solid references on which we can base the information presented in this article, including the IARC Monograph, which has been produced by 25 of the world's top experts in cancer research, epidemiology and tobacco control. RayJohnstone may disagree with the way the Boffetta study has been interpreted by these experts, and may wish to re-open a debate which the scientific community at large considers settled. However, this would be considered as original research, which has no place in Wikipedia according to its no original research policy. Furthermore, the policy is that Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments, and therefore does not provide the appropriate forum for re-interpreting the IARC/Boffetta study. On the other hand, the JNCI editorial qualifies as a verifiable and authoritative sources, as specified in the Wikipedia's official policies and guidelines. Finally, RayJohnstone  should observe that, contrary to the point he advocates, that it is a requirement of Wikipedia that editors rely on authorities.
 * --Dessources 12:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't find any mention of 24 studies in the reference you quote, but I may have missed something. Please check and/or give more information.RayJohnstone 16:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The 24 studies are listed in Table 2.6, on pages 1260-61, of the referenced monograph. The meta-analyses are listed in Table 2.9, on page 1267. Both appear in the part entitled Involuntary smoking, pages 1189-1407. The link above gives access to Chapter 5 of the monograph, entitled "Summary of data reported and evaluation," which is the last chapter of the monograph (pages 1409-13), and the only one which is available online. The monograph may be ordered with WHO Press.
 * --Dessources 17:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair point. I am new to Wikipedia and should have checked their policies first. I do think there is an important place for non-authoritative views. Yes, I am aware this would open the door to all kinds of strange and wacky ideas. But without some of them science would never have progressed.RayJohnstone 16:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Re your replacement for the Boffetta trial. It includes their results with one exception. The childhood exposure results are absent. Why?RayJohnstone 16:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Misleading
The percentage of increase (20% more likely) seems inherently misleading.

if 10 out of a million non-smokers die of lung cancer

and 12 out of a million of those exposed to second hand smoke die of lung cancer, there is a 20% increase, but statistcally, that is insignificant...

could the percentages be clarified some? just seems misleading the way it is worded. 72.174.2.252 17:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It's misleading for a reason. It sounds much more frightening to say "20-30% increase" than to say that the incidences increased from 10 to 12 or 13. 71.72.217.102 08:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

What?! That's not how you calculate that. If it's ten out of a million to begin with, that's 0.001%. If it then goes up to twelve out of a million, that's 0.0012%. That means it's an increase of 0.0002%. It's not an increase of 20% unless the denominator is ten, e.g. if it was 10 deaths out of 10 people before, and then rose to 12 deaths out of 10 people, that would be a 20% increase.

''Someone removed two links I had here, calling them "linkspam" for whatever reason. This is hardly a topic I'm mega-interested in, so I don't care to add them back and start a dispute, but if anyone really cares to learn about the passive smoking issue, there are a couple of links burried deep in the history of this talk page you may want to go and look for.''

...but, with non-stop television commercials spreading lies, the truth doesn't have a chance. -- The one and only Pj 09:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the confusion is in the fact that it is a 20% increase in the number of people who die of lung cancer regardless of the large population surveyed. That means that although 20% more people develop lung cancer, it is still a statistically insignificant amount and is well within the statistical standard deviation of most likely less than 2%. --  This unsigned comment was confusingly placed in the middle of my comment, making it appear to be something I had written.  Dammit, people!


 * No, it's only a 0.0002% increase regardless of the size of the population. Say that rather than 10 and 12 out of 1,000,000, it was instead 10,000 or 12,000 out of 1,000,000,000.  It would still only be a 0.0012% increase, the only difference would be that the results would be statistically significant, although still nothing worth getting your panties in a knot about.


 * According to a random web site, that would put dying from second hand smoke between your odds of being struck by lightning and your odds of being killed by lightning. The odds of being delt a royal flush in poker are 1.5 in 1,000,000, which means that the increase in risk of dying from lung cancer when exposed to second hand smoke is equivient to being delt only one or two poker hands in your entire life and having one of them turn out to be a royal flush.  Sure, it can happen, but it won't.  The fact that the study wasn't comprehensive enough to say with certainty that even that very small effect wasn't just an error in measurement makes it all not even worth mentioning, unless simply to point out that the fuss over passive smoking is unjustifed.


 * The only way you can get a 20% increase from those numbers is to ignore the many people who did not get lung cancer. There may have been a 20% increase in the number of people who died of lung cancer, but there was only a 0.0002% increase in the chance of dying from lung cancer.  -- The one and only Pj 23:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "According to a random website"... OK. According to a non-random website, in 2005 in the U.S. passive smoking resulted in the deaths of "3,000 adult nonsmokers from lung cancer, approximately 46,000 from coronary heart disease, and an estimated 430 newborns from sudden infant death syndrome." Granted, the heart disease numbers are open to some dispute, but that still sounds like significantly more than are killed by lightning in a year, and probably worth "getting one's panties in a knot about", as you put it. Of course, I haven't seen the "random website" you mention where your numbers are coming from... MastCell Talk 23:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, how about what this non-random web site's has to say:


 * "Although this study has been thoroughly debunked by science and legally vacated by a federal judge, it is still regularly quoted by government agencies, charity organizations and the anti-smoking movement as if it were legitimate."


 * There is a consensus that second hand smoke causes cancer, but it's a consensus among a large number of agencies who are all using this one EPA study to form their opinion. That may be a consensus, but it isn't a scientific consensus, it's a consensus among a bunch of people who know what they want to believe and announce it to the world as if it were fact.


 * Now let's see how long it takes for that link to be declared "linkspam." --  The one and only Pj 19:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Not long; it is linkspam, and fails Wikipedia's criteria as either a source for the article or an external link. It fails one of the most basic tests of reliability and editorial oversight: an inability to properly use "its" and "it's". Without re-arguing the case on passive smoking, which seems to be your intent, suffice to say that the conclusions are in no way based solely on one EPA study (that's a fairly obvious straw-man argument), and unsourced or poorly sourced conspiracy theories are generally not encylopedic material. MastCell Talk 19:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, it doesn't belong in the article, but this isn't the article, is it? What's wrong with well-written and referenced texts being included on a talk page?  I just thought that one of the people here who are trying to improve this page might like to read it as it certainly seems to have a lot of referenced and linked information which they can look up to use in the article.  ...but no, let's not point editors to information.  That might cause the article to be improved.  We wouldn't want that to happen.


 * Anyway, if incorrectly using its/it's one time out of nine is all it takes for you to ignore what someone has to say, then clearly there's no point in talking about it. ...which there isn't anyway.  It's articles like this one which make people realize that Wikipedia is the last place they should look for reliable infomation on controversial topics.  --  The one and only Pj 21:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. Feel free to delete everything I've said on this page if you don't like it.  My interest in this page has officially run out, so I won't even come back to notice.  Besides, there's no better way to get the last word than to refuse to listen to the end of the argument, and I love having the last word.  --  The one and only Pj 21:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Section on "studies in humans"
I tagged the new section on "Studies in humans". There are a couple of issues - first, it violates Wikipedia's policy against original research or synthesis. It's basically an unsourced critique of study methodology by an editor. Secondly, it clearly presents the studies in a negative light, as if they suffer from crippling methodologic flaws, when in fact the evidence has been strong enough for quite a few regulatory bodies to take action - and even the tobacco companies, for the most part, acknowledge its validity. Thus, presenting the data in this light also violates Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view and undue weight. MastCell Talk 17:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree with all of the above - it should be removed. Nmg20 09:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been bold and removed it. I moved it here (see immediately below) so that, if there's interest, it can be improved to the point where it could be re-integrated into the article. MastCell Talk 15:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Nmg20, you might care to look at my page for an alternative view re smoking.RayJohnstone 16:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Um - your page is a whole heap of articles on your website, and it's a little hard to tell which if any have been peer-reviewed and published in the scientific press? The articles you have up there from the Australian board of national statistics might be interesting to include if you have links to them on the appropriate site? Nmg20 17:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The process of "peer-review" now means little if anything. It once did. But with the proliferation of journals, just pick one at the bottom of the heap. You'll get published. It will be "peer-reviewed". You will do better to read what people have to say and judge for yourself.RayJohnstone 16:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Nmg20 that RayJohnstone's articles listed on his website do not seem to meet Wikipedia's requirement for reliable and authoritative sources. In some of them, the author even denies any link between active smoking and increased mortality (e.g. "The Myth of Immortality" in the Australian Surgeon). No matter how his writings must have pleased the tobacco industry, even they had low consideration for his work on smoking related matters, as transpires from an internal Philip Morris report (, page 5).
 * --Dessources 00:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your tips on how I should collect and assess information, Ray, and good luck getting some of the stuff on your site published by a journal. Any journal. Nmg20 22:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It took me a while to find the best link which describes the methology for the studies and which is not copyright protected.

Below you will find part of the paragraph regarding ETS Questionnaire from the EPA Report http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=2835 You have to download the link on this page to see the whole report (more than 500 pages)

I assume that this paragraph is more or less valid for all the studies used in the EPA Report otherwise they would not have put it in.

3. 3. 3. Questionnaires for Assessing ETS Exposures

'''Questionnaires are the most commonly used method to assess exposure to ETS in both retrospective and prospective studies of acute and chronic effects. They are the least expensive method to obtain ETS exposure information for large populations.''' They can be used to provide a simple categorization of ETS exposure, to determine time-activity patterns of individuals (e. g., how much time is spent in environments where smoking occurs) , and to acquire information on the factors or properties of the environment affecting ETS concentrations (e. g. , number of cigarettes smoked, size of indoor environments, subjective evaluation of level of smokiness). The time-activity pattern information is combined with measured or estimated concentrations of ETS in each environment to provide an estimate of total exposure. Information on the factors affecting ETS concentrations is used to model or predict ETS levels in those environments.

Questionnaires are used most extensively to provide a simple categorization of potential ETS exposure (e. g., do you live with a smoker?, are you exposed to ETS at your place of work?, how many hours a week are you exposed to ETS?) and to obtain information on possible confounders (e. g. , occupational history, socioeconomic status). When used simply to determine a dichotomous exposure (ETS-exposed vs. unexposed), any misclassification tends to bias measures of association toward the null. Thus, any effect that may be present will be underestimated or even may not be detectable. If there are more than two exposure categories (e. g, light, medium, or heavy exposure), the intermediate categories of exposure may be biased either away from or toward the null. '''Misclassification errors may arise from respondents'(1) lack of knowledge, (2) biased recall, (3) memory failure, and (4) intentional alteration of information. Additionally, there are investigator-based sources of misclassification. Errors may arise if semiquantitative levels are incorrectly imputed to answers;e. g., even if house exposures are higher than occupational exposures on average, for any given individual the ranking may well be reversed from that of the average.''' In using questionnaires to assess exposure categories to ETS, to determine time-activity patterns, and to acquire information on the factors affecting concentrations, it is important to minimize the uncertainty associated with the estimate and to characterize the direction and magnitude of the error. Unlike for active smoking assessment, standardized questionnaires for assessing ETS exposures in prospective or retrospective studies of acute or chronic health or nuisance effects do not exist. Lebowitz et al. (1989) reported on an effort to develop a standardized questionnaire to assess ETS exposure in various indoor environments. This questionnaire, however, has not yet been validated. Questionnaires used to assess ETS exposure typically have been developed for specific studies and have not been validated for general use. There is no "gold standard" with which to validate the questionnaires. Various strategies, however, have been used to assess the validity of diverse types of questionnaires used to assess ETS exposure. Efforts to validate questionnaires have used survey data, air monitoring of nicotine in various microenvironments, and nicotine or cotinine in body fluid samples. A recent study (Leaderer and Hammond, 1991) of 96 homes using a questionnaire to assess residential smoking and a passive nicotine air monitor found that 13% of the residences reporting no smoking had measurable levels of nicotine while 28% of the residences reporting smoking had nondetectable levels of nicotine. A good level of agreement between questionnaire-reported number of cigarettes smoked and residential levels of ETS-related RSP and nicotine was observed in this study (Figures 3-12a and 3-12b). Studies (Marbury et al., 1990;Coghlin et al. , 1989;Coultas et al. , 1987, 1990a, 1990b;Riboli et al. , 1990;Cummings et al. , 1990) comparing various measures of ETS exposure (location of exposure, intensity of exposure, duration of exposure, number of cigarettes smoked, etc. ) with cotinine levels measured in physiological fluids generally meet with only moderate success (explained variations on the order of 40% or less). The largest such study (Riboli et al., 1990) was a collaborative effort conducted in 10 countries;correlations in the range of 0. 3 to 0. 51 (p <0. 01) were found between urinary cotinine levels and various measures of exposure derived from questionnaire data. Using cotinine as a biomarker of exposure, studies indicated that a substantial percentage of those reporting no ETS exposure by questionnaire do have measurable exposure. Differences in the uptake, metabolism, and excretion of nicotine among individuals make it difficult to use this measure as a "gold standard"in validating questionnaires.....

I hope you agree, that people are more interested how studies are done in humans than in animals. If you have differnt information how studies were done, then please provide it and post it with the valid sources. If you want we can put as a reference also the EPA Report in the section.

Catlover77 16:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You seem to have gone through a 525-page report and pulled out one page, then placed your own emphasis on words that are meant to imply that the EPA's methodology was suspect. I have to say I regard this as undue weight and possibly original research, especially since the EPA's own conclusions (based on the entirety of its research, not just the page in question) are stated unequivocally on the summary page you've linked to above: "...widespread exposure to ETS in the United States presents a serious and substantial public health impact. More specifically, EPA concluded that ETS is a human lung carcinogen, responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths annually in U.S. nonsmokers."
 * Selectively citing a few words in a 525-page document to imply that its methodology and conclusions are faulty, and citing the EPA report to support a conclusion distinctly different from the one it actually reached (forgive me if I'm misreading things here) would be a clear instance of undue weight and a misuse of a primary source. MastCell Talk 18:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In addition to MastCell's comments, it should be noted that the EPA report dates back from 15 years ago and that there are now considerably better and more comprehensive scientific reviews of the subject, which incorporate the results that have accumulated at a rapid pace over the intervening years. The most comprehensive of such reviews was undertaken by the California Environment Protection Agency (CalEPA) and was completed in 2005 (all relevant documents can be accessed from ). This review served as the foundation for the decision of the State of California to designate environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) as a toxic air contaminant. The regulation has become effective on February 8, 2007.


 * Part A of the CalEPA review covers exposure assessment (250 pages, ), and Part B deals with health effects of ETS (528 pages, ). The draft of the CalEPA review was made available, on a worldwide basis, for public review and comments. These comments and the responses are contained in Part C (571 pages, ). Some of the comments, especially those emanating from tobacco companies and their representatives, contain arguments similar to those raised by Catlover77 (see for example comments by Maurice E. LeVois, made on behalf of Lorillard Tobacco Company on pages 27-121, and see the responses from the board of experts which conducted the review). Catlover77 should have sent his/her comments to CalEPA at the time of the public review, or should wait for the next opportunity to do so when it presents itself. Wikipedia is not the proper forum for re-activating old arguments which have been shown to be unfounded in authoritative and reliable sources such as the CalEPA report and others (e.g. the 1997 CalEPA ETS report and the Surgeon General 2006 report).
 * --Dessources 23:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The CalEPA report says of Boffetta's work: "In summary, the majority of individual studies reported null or slightly elevated, but nonsignificant, risk estimates for “ever” exposure to ETS during childhood, including the large pooled European study (Boffetta et al., 1998)." and of Brownson's work: "The previous OEHHA report reviewed in detail three large U.S. population-based case-control studies designed specifically to investigate the association between ETS exposure and lung cancer published since 1991 (Cal/EPA, 1997). These studies were conducted in Florida (Stockwell et al., 1992), Missouri (Brownson et al., 1992), and a multicenter study in five geographic areas of the U.S. (New Orleans, Louisiana; Atlanta, Georgia; Houston, Texas; Los Angeles County, California; and San Francisco Bay Area, California) (Fontham et al., 1991; Fontham et al., 1994). A smaller, hospital-based study (Kabat et al., 1995), as well as several other smaller studies were also summarized (Liu et al., 1993; Schwartz et al., 1996; Ko et al., 1997). The results of one U.S. cohort study were also discussed (Cardenas et al., 1997). OEHHA determined that these three population-based studies successfully addressed many of the weaknesses (i.e., small sample size, possible selection bias, possible misclassification biases, inadequate adjustment for potential confounders) found in previous studies on ETS and lung cancer. All three case-control studies identified a statistically significant association between increased risk of lung cancer and long-term ETS exposures." Both statements regarding the work of Boffetta et al and Brownson et al are untrue. So much for authorities.RayJohnstone 04:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * RayJohnstone declares in a peremptory way that statements made in the CalEPA report concerning the work of Boffetta et al. and of Browson are untrue, without any further explanation. I fail to see why we should consider him a more reliable authority on this subject (in particular given his track record in the tobacco field) than the body of experts who produced the CalEPA review. Furthermore, I repeat that Wikipedia is not intended as a forum for conducting such kinds of debates, which could be considered as original research.
 * --Dessources 15:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want further explanation see: http://members.iinet.net.au/~ray/b.html http://members.iinet.net.au/~ray/b.html Better still, read the whole papers. The CalEPA reverses the results of these authors.RayJohnstone 17:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. We're getting into a general debate on passive smoking, which is outside the talk page guidelines. It's intended to be used to coordinate specific changes to the article. For the purposes of Wikipedia, review articles from highly reputable journals and EPA monographs are considered reliable secondary sources; personal webpages or other self-published sources are not. MastCell Talk 18:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Checked the section about collection Data in the CalEPA report. It seems not much has changed, regarding data collection except of maybe 1 or 2 samples of exposure concerning only the last 2 days of exposure.

Regarding the EPA Report the C.I. was 90 % and the usual 95 %. If they would have applied the usual C.I. the results would have been very different.

1.5. Important Considerations in Evaluating the ETS Literature

1.5.1. Measures of ETS Exposure in Epidemiological Studies Characterization of ETS exposure in most epidemiological studies is limited to broad categories (e.g., yes/no, number of hours per week). Accurate categorization is difficult, given the large variation in individuals’ exposures. Exposure has generally been determined in three ways: ascertainment of spousal smoking status; estimation of the number of hours a person is exposed (at home, at work, or elsewhere); or measurement of exposure levels or biomarkers. Some studies also ascertained childhood exposure from parental smoking. Interviews or questionnaires are often used to collect the first two types of information. Some of the limitations of assessing ETS exposure are briefly discussed below, while Part A (update of Chapter 2 in the 1997 report) provides more detail on exposure measurement. A study’s measurement precision and potential for misclassification are important considerations when reviewing epidemiologic studies, particularly environmental epidemiology studies (Hertz-Picciotto, 1998). These are discussed in the following two subsections.

1.5.1.1. Precision of ETS Exposure Measures Precision in epidemiological measurements is related to the reduction of random error, and may be increased by increasing the size of the study and/or improving the efficiency with which information is obtained from study participants. For example, many studies assess ETS exposure in the home with a single question regarding spousal smoking, which in most cases is an imprecise measure of exposure to ETS, since there are substantial exposures to ETS at work or in other social situations. The measurement precision of these studies could be improved with additional questions regarding other smokers in the home, frequency and duration of smoke exposure, and exposures at work or in other settings. In addition, the amount smoked by the spouse outside and inside the home, as well as the time spent in the home by the nonsmoking spouse, varies from couple to couple. Other considerations include size and ventilation of the subjects’ residences. Measurement imprecision and resulting misclassification can also be an issue when exposure is determined by asking subjects about the number of hours they are exposed, for example, at home or work. While questions on number of hours exposed provide more information about multiple exposure sources, respondents may vary in their awareness of and ability to quantify their exposure (Coultas et al., 1989). The tendency is toward underestimation of hours exposed (Emmons et al., 1992). Few studies of this type attempt to verify self-reported exposures. Studies that have more detailed exposure assessments generally have higher precision and are considered of higher quality. Imprecision in measurement blurs the distinctions among exposure groupings and biases the effect estimate towards the null.

1.5.1.2. Exposure Misclassification Misclassification of exposure status occurs when individuals are categorized as being more or less exposed than they actually were. If the likelihood of exposure misclassification does not depend on whether the study subjects are diseased or not (that is, misclassification is “nondifferential”), then an association between exposure and the disease will be more difficult to detect (i.e., the results will be biased towards the null). Misclassification is a concern in studies that rely on the ascertainment of spousal smoking status, because ETS exposures also occur outside the home, e.g. at work. Friedman et al. (1983) found that using spousal smoking to classify persons as ETS-exposed resulted in considerable misclassification in both directions. Forty to fifty percent of persons with non-smoking spouses reported passive smoke exposure and as many as thirty five percent of those married to smokers reported no exposure. Misclassification can also occur when exposures observed at one point in time are assumed to apply to other time periods. This is a particular problem when there are windows of susceptibility at a particular lifestage, but exposure information is missing for that important window. For example, when adults are not asked about childhood exposures from parental smoking, important susceptibility windows are likely missed for some health endpoints. Studies utilizing a limited evaluation of exposure, such as a single question about spousal smoking at baseline, have been shown to underestimate risk of lung cancer (Johnson et al., 2001) and cardiovascular disease (Whincup et al., 2004). In addition, Whincup et al., (2004) evaluated cotinine levels at baseline in their prospective studies and demonstrated that the magnitude of the risk of heart disease was larger at given cotinine levels in the earlier years than the later-years of follow-up, as the exposure measure was further removed in time. This is an important exposure assessment problem in cohort studies that evaluate exposure only at baseline. Misclassification of exposure to passive smoking by limited exposure ascertainment results in referent groups that contain people who have been or are exposed to ETS. This is an important problem in studies of health effects of ETS exposure and biases the results towards the null. Virtually all nonsmokers have been exposed at some point to ETS, particularly in the past when smoking was more prevalent and there were no restrictions on smoking in the workplace, at schools, or in public places. Thus, practically speaking, while a referent group may have a stray light smoker, almost 100% of the people in the referent group of all studies with poor ascertainment of exposure have had at least some exposure to ETS, and in many cases significant long-term exposures. Fontham et al. (1994) found that 64% of never-smoking women in the U.S. reported passive exposure in childhood, 14% non-spousal adult household exposure, 24% social exposure and 60% reported exposure at work. The majority of these exposures occurred over many years. The implication is that the referent categories of non-exposed people can in fact be highly contaminated with exposed individuals if the study only assesses spousal smoking status. Even studies that do a more thorough assessment of all sources of ETS exposure are likely to have some individuals in the referent category with at least some ETS exposure. The result of such misclassification is to bias the results towards the null, which could lead to loss of significance of results, particularly for relative risks between 1 and 2 as in the case for ETS and lung cancer. Examples of exposure misclassification reducing risk estimates for ETS-associated cancers are found in Chapter 7, Sections 7.2. and 7.4. To increase precision and minimize misclassification errors, the occurrence and duration of exposure to all sources of ETS should be ascertained as completely as possible. More recent studies have used measurement of biomarkers of exposure to improve assessment of ETS exposure. The biomarker cotinine, a metabolite of nicotine with relatively short half-life (20-30 hours in blood plasma), is useful in categorizing and verifying recent exposure. However, because it only reflects exposures of the past day or two, it is less useful in evaluating chronic exposure. Measurement of cotinine can also be useful for identifying active smokers, as levels generally differ between smokers and nonsmokers exposed to ETS by one to two orders of magnitude. Assessment of current ETS exposure of children is somewhat less problematic. Although concerns similar to those discussed above regarding measurement imprecision and exposure misclassification remain, children, especially infants and young children, are likely to be exposed to tobacco smoke in fewer circumstances than adults, and are much less likely to smoke themselves (though this is considered important to exclude). Cotinine concentrations in children are well correlated with smoking by the mother (Greenberg et al., 1989); thus, information on cigarette consumption by the mother is likely to provide a reasonable proxy for a young child's ETS exposure. This may not be the case if the mother is not the primary caregiver. The use of paternal smoking alone as a proxy for ETS exposure of infants and children can be problematic, as fathers are generally less likely to be the primary caregiver.

1.5.1.3. Smoker Misclassification In studies of the health effects of ETS exposure, misclassification of smokers as nonsmokers (smoker misclassification) is a potential problem, and smoker misclassification has been a criticism of ETS studies, particularly studies of lung cancer because the relative risk for lung cancer in smokers is so large. Misclassification of smokers as nonsmokers can inflate a risk estimate if such individuals, who have a higher risk of lung cancer, are in the passive-smoke-exposed nonsmokers group in a study. However, the misclassification of ever-smokers as never-smokers affects a very small percent of the nonsmoking referent group in the majority of studies (Nyberg et al., 1997, 1998b; U.S.EPA, 1992d). For example, smoking misclassification was evaluated extensively in a validation study conducted at three of the 12 centers from the IARC study of ETS and lung cancer (Nyberg et al., 1998b). Comparing the results of questionnaire data from index subjects and next of kin (spouses or children), they found that 1.7% of the subjects who said they had never smoked regularly were actually former regular smokers. Furthermore, the misclassification was non-differential with respect to disease status, which tends to bias results towards the null. Nyberg et al. (1997) found less than 5% of ever-smokers were classified as never-smokers. These investigators also note that the misclassified ever-smokers have much lower risks of lung cancer than either current active smokers or former regular smokers because they tend to be either long-time ex-smokers or light smokers, who have only moderately elevated risks for lung cancer. This makes it even less likely that misclassified smokers significantly impact the lung cancer risk estimates from ETS exposure. Finally, in diseases where the relative risk for smokers is small, the impact of smoking misclassification is even less important.

As most people are interested how the studies are done in humans it is an important section. So it should go back in the page. Any suggestions?

Catlover77 15:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, the same one I made above: going through a 545-page report and selectively emphasizing a few phrases to play up your point of view that the report is flawed is original research and a misuse of a secondary source. The report should be cited in relation to its actual conclusions, which are quite clear. If you'd like to include a reliable source criticizing the report, then we can discuss that. However, this looks like essentially the same proposal made above, and my objections are the same as those I described above. MastCell Talk 16:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Original research
This edit consists of original research and is not suitable for Wikipedia. Please see the guidelines on original research and synthesis of published material. Briefly, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original analyses or syntheses of published data. Cobbling together statistics from disparate sources and synthesizing them to further a claim is impermissible under the original research policy. Further, it bothers me that we're again seeing a robust secondary source (in this case, the "Lifting the Smoke Screen" report) used to try and make a point which is opposite of the conclusion drawn by the authors. Please review the relevant policies above; Wikipedia is not the appropriate venue for that sort of thing. MastCell Talk 18:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * To follow up the repeated posting of this link, please see the earlier discussion of this site in the archive. It is manifestly unsuitable as a link on Wikipedia per the policies MastCell has already posted a number of times, and indeed as a reference in any encyclopaedia worth its salt.Nmg20 08:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Additional sources
Some additional sources that might be useful to expand the "Tobacco Industry Response" section, or the "Criticism of scientific consensus" section:
 * Constructing "Sound Science" and "Good Epidemiology": Tobacco, Lawyers, and Public Relations Firms. Am J Public Health, November 2001. "The European "sound science" plans included a version of "good epidemiological practices" that would make it impossible to conclude that secondhand smoke-and thus other environmental toxins-caused diseases. Public health professionals need to be aware that the "sound science" movement is not an indigenous effort from within the profession to improve the quality of scientific discourse, but reflects sophisticated public relations campaigns controlled by industry executives and lawyers whose aim is to manipulate the standards of scientific proof to serve the corporate interests of their clients."
 * Turning Science Into Junk: The Tobacco Industry and Passive Smoking. Am J Public Health, November 2001.
 * Tobacco industry efforts subverting International Agency for Research on Cancer's second-hand smoke study. Lancet, April 2000. "The documents and interviews suggest that the tobacco industry continues to conduct a sophisticated campaign against conclusions that second-hand smoke causes lung cancer and other diseases, subverting normal scientific processes."
 * Junking Science to Promote Tobacco. Am J Public Health, November 2001. "The authors recommend that policymakers be more vigilant and that they demand transparency about affiliations and linkages between allegedly independent scientists and tobacco companies. They also urge policymakers to be prepared for new and continuing challenges posed by the tobacco industry, because, despite the industry's claims, there is little evidence of fundamental change in its objectives."

Some of these may already be cited, but if not, I'll work them in. MastCell Talk 16:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Edits by User:Mickeyklein
Regarding the edits by User:Mickeyklein, as this is a somewhat controversial topic, let's take them one at a time and discuss them here before re-re-inserting them. Firstly, citing the 1998 WHO report at length is inappropriate, as it cherry-picks this study and makes it sound as if the WHO either doesn't think passive smoking is harmful, or has reached the wrong findings. In fact, the WHO and IARC have concluded that passive smoking is clearly harmful. The proposed addition serves to obscure this clear finding by cherry-picking a primary source, which is forbidden by Wikipedia's policy. MastCell Talk 21:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with MastCell Yilloslime 21:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The WHO report carries weight to the debate because it was original research. It was a very well funded and managed clinical trial of the hypothesis that passive smoking causes lung cancer. The researchers went to great pains to control for confounding factors and assembled a large sample size.

The result came in wrong though when the clinical trial failed to uphold the passive smoking hypothesis.

As of yet the study has not been replicated and no rebuttal given to the clinical claims. The only scientific response has been a series of meta studies that show precisely how far the clinical claims deviate from the established opinions of the scientific majority.

For these reasons this study, sponsored by the World Health Organization, is a weighty point of dissent against the consensus of the scientific majority. Mickeyklein 22:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You may be misunderstanding. The point of the article is not to re-fight the debate. Per the neutral point-of-view policy, debates are characterized, not re-enacted, here. The best approach is to properly characterize the views of various participants (e.g. WHO, IARC, Surgeon-General, etc), not for us to decide which primary sources are most important and then juxtapose them to make a point. Including the study findings, at length and out of context, is misleading for the reasons I described above. In fact, secondary sources are preferred here (e.g. the WHO, IARC, SG positions); we are discouraged from assimilating primary sources ourselves and synthesizing our own conclusions. MastCell Talk 22:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

How then can the section "Epidemiological studies of passive smoking" be in line with the rule? In that section many primary studies are cited in support of the hypothesis that smoking causes lung cancer and other various health effects. If that section is not the citation of sources in support of a greater argument then it should include all epidemiological studies on the subject, whether they support or fail to support the hypothesis.

I do not necessarily argue for the placement of the particular WHO study in the dissent section, but rather argue it is another peer reviewed piece of scientific information in the overall question. Mickeyklein 06:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I have heard no response to this point, I will edit the page to reflect the broader epidemiological implications. Until I here reasoned response I will defend my edit with every channel available to wikipedia members.

Mickeyklein 17:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Easy, it hasn't been that long and there's no deadline. If you want to add a brief mention of the WHO study under "Epidemiological studies of passive smoking", then it might be acceptable, provided that the study is not given undue weight or juxtaposed to undermine the WHO/IARC conclusions. There is a fundamental difference between the Epidemiological Studies section and your proposed additions, though. The article is to be based on secondary sources reflecting the findings of experts in the field (ie. conclusions of the WHO, IARC, Surgeon General, etc). Citing a handful of the most relevant primary sources contributing to those conclusions is one thing. Given undue weight to the smaller number of studies which do not support those findings is totally different - it seeks to juxtapose primary sources to "debunk" or cast doubt on our reliable secondary sources. For Wikipedia's purposes, that would violate the policy on original synthesis (i.e. we are not to arrange primary sources so as to advance an argument or make a point which is not covered by reliable secondary sources). MastCell Talk 18:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That makes a bit of sense. My primary concern is that the article is not presented as such that a reader would believe there is no scientific evidence against the consensus view. Both the WHO and the BMJ studies were conducted on a large scale and in good faith and cannot be deleted from the page simply because they disagree with the majorities opinion.

And your insistence on secondary sources is paradoxical. What if the secondary source completely disagrees with the primary? The best instance is the WHO study. The study definitively concluded that there was no correlation between lung cancer and passive smoke, yet the WHO immediately released a press report entitled, ""Passive Smoking Does Cause Lung Cancer - Do Not Let Them Fool You."

Are we men of reason supposed to just swallow this doublethink? To rely purely on the WHO secondary opinion would be to accept that rejection of the hypothesis is really acceptance and that would violate a much more primal rule of scientific logic.

Mickeyklein 18:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not suggesting you swallow anything. If you believe that the WHO's conclusions are incorrect, or at odds with the underlying data, then it's your right to hold that belief and to advocate for it as you see fit. The only thing I'm saying is that Wikipedia is not the proper venue for such advocacy. Encyclopedias are generally venues which describe the status quo and current scientific opinion, rather than challenge it. Of course, if there are notable political or scientific organizations which dispute the WHO/IARC/SG conclusions, then we can describe their views as well, in a manner which does not give them undue weight. The hat we're obliged to wear when editing Wikipedia is not the same hat we wear when, as individuals, we independently and critically evaluate pronouncements and secondary-source findings. That's the point I'm getting at. MastCell Talk 18:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

So if I included a secondary reference that claims there is epidemiological evidence against the hypothesis as a separate section and stated the data without commentary would that be clean? Mickeyklein 18:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The Enstrom et al work was already discussed in the article, now it's in there in 2 places. This obviously violates WP:WEIGHT. Yilloslime 19:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So I've reverted again. Sorry. As I pointed just above, before you started editing the article, it already had a lengthy discussion of the Enstrom and Kabat work. So I removed your redundant material. Your use of the word "consensus" was wierd (sematically), and made the article less clear and more confusing, so I reverted that as well. W/r/t the WHO study. That the WHO "disavoed the study ex post facto" appears to be original research on your part, and thus not permissible. If you find a source that says they disavowed it, great, but otherewise it's a non-starter. Also, why include the study in the first place if they disavowed it? Seems like if it anything, the study in question is a footnote in the long history of ETS. Yilloslime 19:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * (response to Mickey) Yes, secondary sources indicating dispute over the epidemiological evidence can be included, subject to WP:WEIGHT, which states that views must be presented in proportion to their acceptance among experts in the field. For example, up-to-date conclusions from a major scientific or medical organization, or a review article in a well-known peer-reviewed journal, would carry quite a bit of weight as they would be representative of the opinions of quite a few experts. Posts from popular press etc would be given less weight, as being less representative of the opinion of experts in the field. MastCell Talk 19:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Mickeyklein, I share some of your concerns, but there is strict control on the site (especially on pages like this). I, too, have heard that the WHO suppressed their 1998 study because it did simply did not show a statistical link between secondhand smoke and death.  When the press got ahold of it, the WHO tried to shout loud enough to drown out the findings of the report.  Your job would be to find a reliable source meeting Wiki's standards (not an Op Ed or an activists blog).  I once found a good source documenting that the WHO dismissed the lack of statistical significance due to "small sample size" (which is untrue), but I do not have it at hand.  I prefer to quote my sources, even then their conclusions only (to avoid any semblance of cherry picking).  My main problem with this article is that there are too many statements that appear "factual" rather than what they are -- the consensus of the scientific community (many of which, I would add, are funded by the makers of smoking cessasion drugs) and anti-tobacco activists.
 * Consider the following two statements: 1)The moon is made of cheese. 2)Most astronomers agree (or there is consensus...) that the moon is made of cheese. I intend to bring this article more in line with the second statement relative to secondhand smoke.  I also have some other interesting information to add when time allows.Chido6d 00:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You seem to be suggesting that the science has been manipulated by "anti-tobacco activists". In reality, the tobacco industry's frantic efforts to undermine the WHO's findings are well-described here: . It's not the WHO that's shouting to try and drown out the science. It's also worth having a look through the Tobacco Document Archive if you're concerned about the integrity of the scientific process. MastCell Talk 05:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, the science has been manipulated. More so, the conclusions do not square with the evidence.  Suddenly, things that would be normally considered non-significant, small or weak do not only rise to the level of significance, they rise to the level of a national hazard.  It's not our job to debate that in the article, but things should be attributed to the appropriate source (whenever possible in the text itself).  There is so much evidence that the passive smoking issue is not only about the health of non-smokers; the intent of the anti-tobacco movement is also to denormalize smoking, decrease tobacco consumption, encourage quitting and change perceptions (using the passive smoke issue as a tool).  This is social engineering, pure and simple.  I am not referring to industry criticism of the WHO.  The facts are out there that the WHO did not release the report, and when it finally came to light they issued their press release stating things that the report clearly did not say.  Information is scant, but it's out there.71.72.217.102 11:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * All of this very interestering, but if you can't come up with sources for these assertions, then you're dead in the water. Yilloslime 16:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was trying to set an example by citing . I'd strongly encourage you to read the full text (which may not be available online). It's a secondary source from one of the top five medical-scientific journals (The Lancet), and it clearly describes the specific WHO/IARC report we're talking about, and the tobacco industry's efforts to spread doubt and undermine its conclusions (using essentially the same arguments that Mickeyklein is using above). It also contains a useful history of the tobacco industry's overall efforts to silence or undermine the growing scientific evidence on passive smoking. Again, these are not my opinions I'm asserting (though I share them) - these are conclusions drawn by a reliable secondary source, representing majority scientific opinion. Wikipedia isn't a discussion forum - it's an encyclopedia, and it functions by collecting and assimilating such sources into an encyclopedia article. MastCell Talk 16:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm just reaching back to my introductory statistics lectures where my poor innocent University of California at Berkeley math professor actually believed you have to breech the confidence interval to establish a statistical truth. 71.204.186.153 17:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Did your professor actually suggest that there's such a thing as an unarguable "truth" in statistics? Or that something magical happens at p=0.05? I've never heard a statistician make either of those claims. Regardless: cite a reliable source. Junkscience.com is not a reliable source in this context; quite aside from the fact that the website is a tobacco-industry mouthpiece, WP:RS states that "claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community" require exceptional sources. A more appropriate source for describing the "controversy" over the WHO report would be the Lancet article I mentioned above. MastCell Talk 18:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes he did. He showed us the extensive calculus that goes into such claims. Apparently as theta approaches 10,000 the error rate approaches 0. That which is in the confidence interval must be considered random, that outside of it is truthful to the limit of 0.

And as for the citation, I'm logging onto my university Lexus Nexus account to find a better sourced copy of the article in question. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mickeyklein (talk • contribs).


 * That's fine. After you do that, can you please bring the proposed addition here, to the talk page, for discussion rather than continuing to reinsert material that's been objected to? MastCell Talk 18:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I proposed mediation for that reason. I believe this evidence is critical to the page and will continue to edit it ad infinitum.

I have found your secondary source, I found the lexis nexus on it, I want to talk to a wikipedia authority if it is to be excluded from the page. Mickeyklein 18:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * And another question, how is information from tobacco companies necessarily more biased than information from anti tobacco groups? Mickeyklein 19:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "Anti-tobacco groups"? If you're referring to the WHO, IARC, Surgeon General, Centers for Disease Control, and every major medical organization in the U.S. and Europe as "anti-tobacco groups", then yes, those are generally considered more objective and reliable sources than the tobacco industry when it comes to the risks of cigarette smoking.
 * Regardless, I've updated the WHO controversy section with a few more reliable and scientific sources, so as to present it in its full context. I've included the Economist citation, as well as a few other popular-press articles claiming the WHO/IARC were covering up or mispresenting their results.
 * As to your stated intention to "continue reinserting your edit ad infinitum", I'd strongly advise against it. Wikipedia functions by consensus and discussion on talk pages; engaging in an edit war to get your way will not only be ineffective, but will probably end up with you being blocked from editing (see the three-revert rule). MastCell Talk 19:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * thanks for the fair edit, it should end up looking something like that; and i guess i don't view state sponsored science as objective when it relates to recreational drugs due to their long history of obscuring scientific data on them (LSD gets in your spine, chromosomes and soul...) Mickeyklein 19:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe much of what the tobacco companies say. On the other hand, I don't expect them to disclose negative things about tobacco. I also view tobacco companies only slightly less reliable than major medical organizations. The absolute truth is that in around 85% of the epidemiological studies about passive smoke, the confidence interval includes the null. The results are the same year after year, study after study, biases notwithstanding. They just can't make the thing work. So they throw all the numbers into a pot, add some funny money by the makers of Chantix, Nicoderm, Habitrol, Zyban, etc., wave a magic wand over it and start screaming fear, misery and death.Chido6d 01:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't followed this too closely, but I have seen ample evidence that Big Tobacco has put a lot of money into trying to cast doubt over the connection between ETS and negative health effects. (See for example the references cited by MastCell above). I have yet to see any evidene that "the makers of Chantix, Nicoderm, Habitrol, Zyban, etc.," have tried to influence the "debate" in the other direction--but again, I haven't been following this very closely. Anyways, Chido6d, Mickeyklein, et al., is there any real evidence for this out there? (Other than self published websites and blogs of dubious credibility, or OpEds by folks associated with the tobacco industy.) Yilloslime 01:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There absolutely is. Dr. Michael Fiore, Director of the Center for Tobacco Research and Intervention and a former epidemiologist for the Office on Smoking and Health, admitted in testimony before a U.S. District Court that his research was funded by pharmaceutical companies (such as GlaxoSmithKline) to the tune of nearly $1 millionUSD in 2004 alone.  He also received up to $90,000USD annually in personal income and endowments from these companies. Read his own testimony.  You also can look above, to the top of this page, where the alleged conflict of interest was examined by an Edmonton (Canada) newspaper.  Information on this stuff is hard to find, most likely due to media bias.
 * MastCell, with all due respect, I object to the last paragraph of the new section on the WHO study. It is commentary and interpretation.  Placing controversy in quotation marks, and attempting to describe the extent to which the tobacco industry scheme to discredit the study was successful (something the source does not say) does not belong in this article.  You know better; please clean it up.Chido6d 02:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, drug companies aren't above putting their thumbs on the scale of science, but Michael Fiore being funded in part by Glaxo does not a conspiracy make. Research indicating that passive smoking is harmful was being conducted and published long before any anti-smoking drugs came along. You could just as well argue that the makers of Avastin, a treatment for lung cancer which costs about $500,000 a year, would be motivated to downplay the harms of smoking and keep people hooked. That's the beauty of conspiracy theories. As to the last paragraph, the authors absolutely did conclude that the controversy was generated by the tobacco industry to undermine the IARC study (take a look at the full text of the article). As to the "scare quotes", you're right, those were unencyclopedic, and I've removed them. MastCell Talk 02:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Man, oh man...It is perfectly appropriate to mention that the tobacco companies engaged in a campaign to exploit their own take on the WHO study. You went farther than that.  You said the controversy was largely a result of their (tobacco's) scheme, and this is not found in the abstract.  You need to remove your interpretations.
 * If the makers of Avastin were doing what you say, I would be skeptical of them as well. And, contrary to your assertion, nicotine replacement therapy has been around since at least the very early 80's...if not even before that.
 * I doubt if the pharmaceutical companies would admit a conflict unless forced to do so in some kind of settlement agreement where their internal documents are exposed (sound familiar?).Chido6d 03:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It is ad hominem to attack a study because of the funding source of the research. Scientific experiments are designed to be replicated, and anti tobacco groups with their own money could replicate the tobacco company trials. 71.204.186.153 05:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You seem to have things backwards. The studies were done by "anti-tobacco groups" (as you call them), with their money. They were replicated repeatedly, to the point that an "inescapable scientific conclusion" (in the words of the JNCI) developed. It is not ad hominem to take the funding source of a study into consideration - that's why every major medical journal demands conflict-of-interest disclosures from authors. I brought up Avastin to illustrate that the pharmanoia angle you seem to be pushing is by no means as clear-cut as you'd make it out to be. As to the finding that the controversy was largely the result of a tobacco-industry effort to discredit the IARC - you're right, it's not in the abstract. It's in the full text of the article. If you don't have full-text access to the Lancet, there's always the title of the article: "Tobacco industry efforts subverting International Agency for Research on Cancer's second-hand smoke study." In any case, the talk page is not a forum for general debate about passive smoking, so I'll leave it there. MastCell Talk 05:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Then quote the full text of the article, on this discussion page, where it says just that. This isn't a general discussion; I believe there is interpretation in your summation. From a careful reading of the abstract and my own common sense, I don't doubt that the tobacco industry spent time and resources putting their spin on the study results. On the other hand, I'm not sure that they paid or influenced the newspapers that reported the findings before the study's publication (that is, while the study was yet being hidden). Furthermore, I don't see any evidence as to how successful the scheme of the tobacco industry actually was; this is the problem I see.
 * If pharmaceutical funding is no cause to dismiss research outright (of course it is not necessarily), then neither is tobacco industry funding (depending on the situation, circumstances and other factors).
 * It's also quite amazing how much emphasis is on what entities say about their own research without disclosing the actual data. Instead of "research concluded 'data x' and the researcher said/concluded 'y'", we are getting a big dose of the second part and very little, if any, of the first. I would add that I'm not terribly concerned about the pharmaceutical issue (lest I give that impression). I'm fairly comfortable with the numbers that are cranked out no matter who pays for them. It's the propaganda that is so disturbing.Chido6d 11:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Quotes from the Lancet article
First off, the reason we're hearing what entities such as the WHO, CDC, Surgeon General say about the data is that Wikipedia is meant to be based on secondary sources. Primary sources (e.g. the original studies themselves) are to be used with caution and are not to be joined together to advance a novel position. This is covered in detail in the following policies: no original research, verifiability, and reliable sources. It's also been covered ad nauseum higher up on this talk page.

Regarding the Lancet article, here are a few quotes:
 * On March 8, 1998, the London Sunday Telegraph reported that WHO was withholding a study that not only failed to show that passive smoking caused lung cancer but also might even demonstrate a protective effect.14 British American Tobacco (BAT), which had held private media briefings to ensure “balanced” coverage of the forthcoming study, was suspected to have fuelled the story.
 * To understand the industry's strategy towards the IARC study, we examined previously confidential tobacco industry documents that reveal how Philip Morris (PM) spearheaded an extensive inter-industry effort to stop, affect the wording of, delay, and counteract the IARC study.
 * The industry sought to manage and monitor the public's perception of the IARC study's results.
 * PM [Philip Morris] realised that the tobacco industry had little credibility in Europe, and it turned to the media to promote its messages.
 * BAT [British American Tobacco] instigated the March, 1998, press articles about the IARC study... Winokur reported that the “publicity generated by BAT” started with the March, 1998, Sunday Telegraph story and continued with promotions in the USA, Australia, Brazil, and other markets... Winokur noted that the timing of the Sunday Telegraph story seems to have been designed to precede the release of the UK's Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health report on passive smoking three days later.
 * The massive effort launched across the tobacco industry against one scientific study is remarkable. Whereas over ten years (1988–98) the IARC study is estimated to have cost $1·5–3·0 million, PM alone budgeted at least $2 million for “IARC” plans for just one year (1994) and proposed $4 million for studies to help discredit IARC's work. The elaborate plans were developed by PM's top management, implemented by an elite task force, and designed to coordinate the international tobacco industry. The complex plan relied on third-party vehicles that did not reveal the extent of the industry's efforts to shape the scientific, communications, and government relations issues of secondhand smoke on a worldwide basis.

I could go on, but you get the picture. I think that my summary, if anything, understates the Lancet article's conclusions about the role of the tobacco industry in fomenting this controversy. MastCell Talk 17:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if you are right about the opinion of the Lancet, and I think you're reaching (to put it kindly), it is improper to occupy more than half of the section with it. There is far too much detail, and the volume of the propaganda of Stanton Glantz is certainly not justified by its value.  The substance of the controversy itself had little (if anything) to do with the tobacco industry.  The WHO waited at least several months to publish this study; they tried to bury it because the data and conclusions did not support their position.  It's really that simple.  Tobacco companies were spending resources long before the study was complete, but the study actually turned out much different than they (and the WHO) had anticipated.Chido6d 04:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, all of these points are inaccurate or strawmen. It's not just the Lancet; we've now added several other medical journal articles (from American Journal of Public Health) reaching the same conclusions. Also the WHO's own investigation, which revealed the tobacco industry's efforts. Yes, the controversy had a lot to do with the tobacco industry - not my opinion, but a verifiable fact found in the several reliable sources we've cited. The WHO didn't "wait" to publish the study; it's called peer review. It takes a while, and the Lancet article describes the tobacco industry's efforts to "scoop" the publication of the article to create the appearance that the WHO was "hiding" it when in fact this was not the case. It's all in the cited sources. MastCell Talk 04:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Tobacco Companies Did Not Invent the Confidence Interval
The IARC report is not a vague document, the results blatantly fail to meat the confidence interval. This confidence interval is a product of the apriori laws of statistics that existed for an eternity before the tobacco companies.

No person who got a B or higher in introductory statistics would honestly, and I emphasize honestly, believe the WHO's secondary conclusion of causality. Its not as if the evil tobacco companies came on this study to fill our head with lies.

This might break your small "l" liberal heart, but what if the WHO is the one lying?

Mickeyklein 15:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * True...(though I would have left out the little jab; it's not productive). What you may be noticing is that this issue is being portrayed as good vs. evil.  This is the only way (or perhaps the best way) that anti-tobacco can draw conclusions and make claims that are clearly not supported by the data -- even to the point of absurdity.  The claims of the tobacco industry are not only viewed (rightly) as suspect, they are trumpeted as utterly false and with strong implication is that the opposite is true.  The health and science community, along with big pharmaceutical, is incapable of exaggerating this issue (so they say).  I'll have more on the new contribution about the WHO later.Chido6d 19:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The confidence interval is discussed, inter alia, in the Lancet review. The IARC study does not exist in isolation but is part of a pattern of evidence. It's not just the WHO that has concluded causality. Even many tobacco companies, after kicking and screaming, have accepted the links. Your casting this as a liberal v. conservative political issue speaks volumes. Perhaps most importantly, the talk page is not a forum for general debate on this topic. Provide a reliable source and propose an edit that uses that source in a manner consistent with the undue weight policy. MastCell Talk 19:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I should rather have said, "state approved conclusion" vs. prima facia examination. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mickeyklein (talk • contribs).


 * Ah. Well. That actually solves our debate, then. The conclusions you (or I, for that matter) draw from prima facie examination of the evidence constitute original research and synthesis by Wikipedia's standards, are are inappropriate for inclusion. The conclusions of major medical, scientific, and public health organizations, on the other hand, are reliable secondary sources upon which Wikipedia's articles are based. MastCell Talk 20:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Or "pattern of a lack of evidence". If 85% of the time I came up with "null", I'd give it up.  That is certainly a pattern.
 * Secondary sources are suitable indeed; the total absence of data (in this article) is my objection. One of the statements above does speak volumes; I was just inspired by a paraphrase: "It doesn't matter what the data says.  The only thing that matters is what others (who share my agenda and point of view) say the data says."  Chido6d 04:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That's both an inaccurate paraphrase and a classic strawman argument. What "others" (the medical, scientific, and public health communities) say reflects an interpretation of what the data says. That interpretation is presented in the article, in line with Wikipedia's policies which I've listed above. It's fine if you believe those organizations are wrong; however, Wikipedia is not the place to Right Great Wrongs. MastCell Talk 04:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Its all reefer madness, it just boggles my mind someone so intelligent as you is so willing to be lied to71.204.186.153 17:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey Chido, where did you get the 85 percent missing the confidence? I want to chase that data down to a wiki level source. Mickeyklein 17:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's the thing: as MastCell continues to point out, wikipedia is not the place for us to evaluate the primary literature and draw conclusions. Numerous reviews and monographs by expert scientists and governmental & intergovernmental agencies have already done this for us. Our job is to accurately and concisely summarize their findings in this wikipedia entry. Our thoughts on the significance of the lack of statisical significance of the IARC study are insignificant. Anyway, the Lancet article explicitly goes into a discussion of CIs on the last page. Read it if you haven't. (You need to register to get access to the content, but that's free. It'd quote it here but the relevant part is several paragraphs long and I don't want to run into copyright issues.) One point not made by the article is the following: True, one study in isolation with a RR of 1.16 (95% CI: 0.93 to 1.44) is not convincing evidence of a link between passive smoking and lung cancer, since the CI spans zero.  However, taken as a whole, dozens of studies that yield similar results--even if the CIs for all of them span 0--do argue convincingly that there is (causitive) link between passive smoking a lung cancer. Here's why: if I flip a coin 12 times and it comes up heads every time, the chance that that happened randomly is extremely small. It's the same thing with these epidemiological studies: forget about what the individual confidence intervals are, if 11 of 12 of them have RR>1, the chances of this being a random effect is exceedingly small. That's why you have to consider all the epidemiological studies; that's why people to do meta-analyses; and that's why cherry-picking a single study from the literature to support your views is a bad idea. Now, my comments above are totally impermissible in the article, but I hope they will help you understand why a study with a relative risk who's CI spans zero can still be part of the greater picture that shows that passive smoking causes lung cancer. Yilloslime 19:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing that out. Do you (or anyone) know of a forum where we can discuss the issue?  Sometimes the line is fuzzy between a general discussion and article related talk; this is understandable, but I think we do a fairly good job in here overall and are, for the most part, civil.  I do look at all studies and the conclusions are remarkably similar.  The fact that most RR's include values less than one would mean that the association is very low (several studies admit this in their conclusions).  I realize that it would not necessarily mean no association. Chido6d 03:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Addition of Secondary Source
I have found a secondary published source that covers two points of dissent against the scientific majority:

1) Toxicological flaws in ETS studies 2) Confidence interval problems

www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv30n1/v30n1-5.pdf

I will propose an edit section for this article later, but first I want to run through the credibility process of the source. Mickeyklein 18:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I figured it was only a matter of time before someone brought up Gio Batta Gori (the author of the Cato piece). It's worth typing his name into the Tobacco Documents Archive. Interesting his biosketch in the Cato article mentions his association with the NCI (which ended around 1980), but not the fact that he left to work as a full-time consultant to the tobacco industry's ETS project. In 1989, to take a year at random, he was budgeted $1.152 million by Brown & Williamson tobacco. Not too shabby. Oh, he was also paid to work with tobacco-industry lobbyists, and was tasked with going after the EPA on second-hand smoke . He's not very popular with Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights, unsurprisingly. I guess what I'm saying is that the Cato Institute is a reasonable source for criticism of the scientific consensus, so long as its political agenda and some of those links are kept in mind and things are presented in the appropriate context. MastCell Talk 00:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Mickey, to answer your question above, I simply tracked the odds ratio, relative risk and confidence interval of published studies on ETS. Though absolutely factual, it is original research not suited for Wikipedia (I suppose for good reason).  On another note, it looks like you are doing a good job with sources.  Something to keep in mind is that your source will probably be vilified by someone with no real substantial counterargument.  It is also perfectly appropriate to choose a source with a political agenda, as long as the agenda is the same as Richard Carmona and/or Stanton Glantz. Chido6d 03:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There are agendas and then there are agendas. Even the contrarians attracted to this issue would have to agree that working for a tobacco company, whose existence and profits are solely tied to the continued sale of cigarettes, provides a powerful agenda. Working for the U.S. government (which, incidentally, makes money through tobacco taxes and loses money when people stop smoking), the World Health Organization, or the University of California, San Francisco medical center may certainly inform your viewpoint, but those hardly in the same league in terms of conflicts of interest. Contrary to your assertion above, I don't enjoy being lied to. There are 8,000,000 pieces of documentation detailing how the tobacco industry has lied to the public; I've not seen anything, other than uninformed and unsubstantiated conspiracy theories, to suggest that the WHO/IARC/ACS/SG are doing anything other than interpreting the data in the manner most protective of the public health. As to a "counterargument" to the Cato piece, I suppose the fact that no one, other than tobacco-industry employees working for tobacco-industry-funded think tanks, can be found to publicly argue the case is all the counterargument necessary. MastCell Talk 05:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I will be sure to mention that Cato is a Libertarian leaning think tank with an agenda opposed to government regulation of passive smoking. As for the edit, give me a day or two dammit :P 71.204.186.153 14:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is really rough, but hopefully a start. Mickeyklein 16:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I see a number of problems with the above:
 * It's way too long, per WP:WEIGHT
 * Terms like "fatal...flaw" and "fair" are charged, and inject POV. If Gori actually used these words, then they should be in quotes, otherwise they don't belong in the article.
 * The methodological flaws are not clearly described.
 * There are many minor wording issues, e.g. "Libertarian" doesn't need to be capitalized, it's the Cato Institute, etc.
 * There is no mention of Gori's ties to the tobacco industry (see post by MastCell, above.)
 * Yilloslime 20:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * My major issue is with the length of the proposed section, as compared to the actual weight (in terms of "opinions of experts in the field") that this perspective currently carries. I'd phrase it something like this:
 * Or something like that. On another note, whomever picked up the fact that the cited source for passive smoking/miscarriage was inaccurate, thank you. I'll remove that. We should go through the list of harms and make sure that they are all supported by the cited sources. MastCell Talk 21:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Or something like that. On another note, whomever picked up the fact that the cited source for passive smoking/miscarriage was inaccurate, thank you. I'll remove that. We should go through the list of harms and make sure that they are all supported by the cited sources. MastCell Talk 21:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's more on Gio Batta Gori:
 * Gio Batta Gori, an epidemiologist and toxicologist, is a fellow of the Health Policy Center in Bethesda. He is a former deputy director of the National Cancer Institute's Division of Cancer Cause and Prevention, and he received the U.S. Public Health Service Superior Service Award in 1976 for his efforts to define less hazardous cigarettes. Source - The Washington Post.
 * I knew very little about him, but that seems pretty impressive. I believe it is appropriate to include this information along with that suggested by MastCell.
 * I did an edit on the WHO section (sorry for the technical difficulties I had). There is no pro-tobacco propaganda therein, while doing justice to the tobacco industry lobby during the study (the controversy is about the report's release).  I also added the allegation that the story was fueled by BAT.
 * I did not edit the part about miscarriage, but the report/source does seem to deny any definitive link. Thoughts? Chido6d 01:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * About the miscarriage stuff, the source clearly doesn't support a clear link (as the anon IP pointed out), and so it should be removed unless we find a better source. I wasn't involved in the laundry list section, so it may be worthwhile to check the other sources and make sure they support the claims of harm. As to your edits to the WHO section, I think they look decent overall, though they do water down the Lancet conclusions a little and I may propose a minor change there. Otherwise I can live with them. As to Gori, he did have a very impressive resume, which is what made him such a great catch for the tobacco industry. His association with the NCI apparently ended around 1980, after which he worked full-time for the tobacco companies. At least that's my understanding. MastCell Talk 03:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've created the page Gio Batta Gori using info from Sourcewatch, edited to remove some POV comments. While this doesn't belong in Wikipedia, it's fair enough, I think "After Gori left the NCI in 1980 he traded on the professional credibility he had accumulated, aligned himself with tobacco industry interests and reaped significant financial rewards in the coming years by serving those interests." So now we all know a lot more about him, and are, perhaps, that little bit more depressed about human nature.JQ 11:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Heres the paradox I have right now, I am willing to better explain the methodological flaws and Gori/Cato's tobacco ties but I cant shorten the section at the same time. That is a contradictory request. I'm gonna post a new edit purposely to long with everything included, then hopefully do the garden sheer edit on the English. Mickeyklein 14:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Update  I found a new source that says much of the same things about the confidence interval flaws: http://ltdlimages.library.ucsf.edu/imagesc/c/y/l/cyl42d00/Scyl42d00.pdf

I was wondering if it would be better to make one omnibus section about objections to confidence interval and methodology flaws (once i pick up a few more wiki level sources) to obtain the dual goals of effective detail and weight to a small number of sources. Mickeyklein 15:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

And on a note of full disclosure: I do not receive any funding or encouragement from the Tobacco industry, I merely believe that freedom is the freedom to say 2+2 = 4. Mickeyklein 15:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Mickeyklein, I think it's best to not go into depth on the methodological flaws that Gori and others describe. I realize that in my previous post I objected to your proposed content the grounds that "The methodological flaws are not clearly described." What I meant was, if you are going to describe the methodological flaws pointed out by Gori, then you ought to describe them clearly. And the proposed new content did describe the flaws, but poorly. But anyways, the more I think about it, the more I think that we're best to not jump into a discussion of the flaws. As you point out "I am willing to better explain the methodological flaws...but I cant shorten the section at the same time." This article on ETS is not the place to for a statistics lesson, that's what's needed to accurately descibe his arguments. I'd propose summarizing his critique along the these lines: "Gori objects to the scientific consensus on passive smoking arguing that studies that show an increased risk but fail to reach statistical significance at the p=0.05 level are 'moot.' He also argues that a dose-response relationship has not been demonstrated for ETS and cancer."
 * or something along those lines.Yilloslime 17:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Gio Batta Gori, writing in Cato's  Regulation  offered criticism of the statistical significance of ETS lung cancer studies. Gori writes, "Of the 75 published studies of ETS and lung cancer, some 70 percent did not report statistically significant differences of risk and are moot. Roughly 17 percent claim an increased risk and 13 percent imply a reduction of risk". Gori used a p value of .05, contrary to the scientific norm of .1.


 * The United States Surgeon General and other government health ministers continue to assert that a p-value of .10 is the scientific norm for epidemiology and adequate to decisively prove that passive smoking causes lung cancer.


 * is that better? Mickeyklein 18:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

An aside on Gori. Can anyone find out anything about the Health Policy Centre in Bethesda, where he claims an affiliation. Google comes up pretty much blank.JQ 21:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Have searched the Legacy Tobacco Docs Library? I just found this invoice for $6K. Yilloslime 21:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No. It's not "The Surgeon General and other government health ministers". It's every medical, scientific, and public health body that has studied the question. The link is disputed only by paid tobacco-industry personnel. Undue weight, anyone? Also, enough with the stuff about a confidence interval of 0.10 being the norm - that's completely original research and a strawman. MastCell Talk 04:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * How can .10 not be the norm? I thought the good Surgeon General followed scientific norms in coming to his strong conclusions about the link between ETS and lung cancer. 69.181.208.181 06:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You mean, as opposed to the bad Surgeon General? Seriously, if you want to dispute the position of the major health organizations on this topic, you're welcome to create a website on the topic, or add to one of the many anti-WHO sites that exist, but you can't put it in Wikipedia. The article already gives plenty of space to the views of Phillip Morris and the organizations PM funds. Unless you can point to reliable, non-tobacco-funded sources that have been overlooked, you're wasting your time and ours here.JQ 08:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you want to take this issue to formal mediation? I am sick and tired of anti smoking lobbyists gratuitously blocking relevant and important scientific criticism from this page.

If I cannot make an edit using secondary sources to reveal the obvious scientific criticism of the ETS hypothesis I will initiate formal proceedings to bring the issue to a Wikipedia authority up to and including arbitration.

I have heard nothing except how "this is Wikipedia" and "this isn't Wikipedia", why don't we all just go to a Wikipedia authority of some kind and get a final answer as to this page. Honestly, if the Wikipedia authorities said that no dissent is allowed on the page, I'll just walk away and loose my personal respect for Wikipedia's intellectual integrity, but thats about it. Mickeyklein 15:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)69.181.208.181 13:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Your statements contain quite a few inaccuracies and demonstrate why Wikipedia policy is to comment on content, not the contributor. "Anti-smoking lobbyists"? If anything raises concerns about a conflict of interest, it might be the nearly simultaneous appearance of two single-purpose accounts dedicated to arguing a minoritarian tobacco-industry viewpoint. "Important and relevant scientific criticism" is usually published in peer-reviewed journals, not in the Cato Institute's house journal. Criticism of the scientific consensus is already given far more space than is warranted in proportion to its representation among experts in the field; arguing we should another section to quote Gori at length is a violation of undue weight. It isn't a matter of dissent "being allowed"; Wikipedia is not a battleground, and it describes debates, it doesn't refight them. Therefore, scientific dissent is described in the context of its acceptance among experts in the field. If you're unhappy with that state of affairs, Wikipedia is not the venue to change it. MastCell Talk 18:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Single purpose? I go by the name Mickey Klein and I rarely participate in Wiki editing. Mickeyklein 18:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Chido6d's edits
In the spirit of compromise, consensus building, and the like, I am not going to revert it, but I don't think Chido6d's recent edit to the section on the WHO controversy improves the article. As MastCell pointed out, it waters down the Lancet material. And as I recall, the Lancet article fingers PM more than any other company, and MastCell's edits reflected this, meanwhile Chido6d has removed any mention of PM and replaced it with BATC. Also, Chido6d inserted this into the description of the IARC study: ''[the study also found] "no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk." The study also found "no detectable risk after cessation to exposure" to ETS.'' While this is true, these finding were not part of the "controversy" and thus don't need to be mentioned in this section which is about the controversy.Yilloslime 16:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Yilloslime. The role of PM needs to be brought out more clearly.JQ 21:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Why I reverted MastCell’s edit

1) The conclusions of the study are at the heart of the controversy. The controversy was two-fold:

a. Why the WHO allegedly withheld the report from publication, and b. That the report seemed at odds with the WHO’s position on the issue.

As clear proof of this, one only has to read the article that appeared in the Sunday Telegraph. I have found the article and will be posting a better link. Please read it.

2) According to the sources, the WHO was not accused of manipulating the study. They were accused of hiding it.  Again, read the articles.

3) The WHO responded to the media reports within hours. Their press release was dated the next day.  Should we use the term “immediately” instead?  For the record, I am not particularly opposed to using “in response”, but a revert was simpler.

4) The tobacco industry may have been spending money and resources in anticipation of the report, but in fact they were most pleased with the study’s findings. As it is, I would have to insert favorable comments that BAT made about the study.  I do think it’s fair to mention that the tobacco industry may have encouraged the media to break the story, even that they may have feared that the report may be damaging, but not much more than that.  Fueling the story is not the same as “engineering the controversy”.Chido6d 03:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As to 1 and 2, I'll be happy to look at the article. As to 3, why is it relevant how quickly the WHO responded? Why not "In response"? As to 4, I think you've watered down the Lancet article's conclusions unacceptably. It says what it says. It says, exactly, that the tobacco industry engineered this controversy to try to discredit a potential threat to their business. I'm not OK with whitewashing that. "Encouraged the media to break the story" and "feared the report might be damaging" are complete and total whitewashes of what the Lancet article actually says - and note it is fully referenced and appeared in a highly respected peer-reviewed medical journal in a nation with very strict defamation laws. MastCell Talk 04:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, the controversy was specifically about the "weak association", not about the areas where no association was found. Therefore, for this section it's superfluous to rehash the entire list of conclusions, and it confuses the focus of the paragraph, which is the controversy. I've edited accordingly. MastCell Talk 04:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "In response" will do. "The WHO quickly responded" is better. With that out of the way, I don't see how you can read the media reports and make some of those conclusions.  The Telegraph made two statements about the WHO report directly: 1) That the report found that there was "no statistical evidence that passive smoking causes lung cancer" (quoted from the article), and 2) "There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood." (quote from the WHO study that also appeared in the article).  These bear mentioning in this article, therefore they will be.  It is not objective to withhold this information while giving extra weight to an opinion that appeared in a journal nearly two and a half years after this controversy ensued.  I'm also going to read the Lancet article in search of the word "engineered".  Lastly, pending my reading of the Lancet article again, I am failing to see the link between PM/BAT and the substance of the controversy at all.  Even if they did implement a "three-pronged strategy" against the report, it turns out that they didn't need to.  There is no evidence, to my knowledge that they influenced the findings of the study or delayed its publication.  Maybe you can help me understand a clear association.  But your edit, as it stands, are not acceptable.Chido6d 11:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No, of course the tobacco industry didn't influence the study's findings (though the article and document archive makes it clear that it wasn't for lack of trying). The point of the Lancet review was that the tobacco industry created the controversy, as part of a strategy of fostering doubt and uncertainty about results showing that smoking is harmful. "Engineered" is a summary, and a quite accurate one, of the article's findings. To say the article finds "no association" between the tobacco industry and the controversy is the exact opposite of what the article actually says (and its title makes clear). MastCell Talk 18:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You mean, "no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk" and "no detectable risk after cessation to exposure" to ETS", the two things that were not in the report? Mickeyklein 18:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean. MastCell Talk 19:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What I'm saying is that the findings themselves are credible as starters of the controversy. If the report did not have those findings then there would be nothing special about it as a point of dissent.


 * True the tobacco companies did instigate as much trouble as they could over it, but most of what they did was state factual things about the report such as those two lines and the observation of the confidence intervals. It is the WHO that had to find the reasoning why years of methodology focusing on the p=.05 confidence interval was being overturned to make way for evidence concerning second hand smoke.


 * The results of this report and the WHO response leaves people like me left to wonder what makes the methodology of studying second hand smoke subject to different standards of hypothesis testing than other subject areas of epidemiology and toxicology.69.181.208.181 20:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Check page 4 of this source: http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2057837379-7386.html, sure it was made by people working for tobacco companies, but their analytical claims are strong no matter their paymaster. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.181.208.181 (talk • contribs).

We're going in circles. Please understand: this is not the place to debate the underlying issue. I get it; you think the results are bogus. But this isn't an opinion forum; we present the published views of reliable sources, and any controversy needs to be described and verified in those sources. Continually moving this discussion into a personal debate about our relative beliefs, and away from published sources, violates the talk page guidelines. Also, please check that you're signed in when you save your edit - with the recent proliferation of single-purpose accounts and IP's, I can't keep everyone straight. MastCell Talk 21:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Once I carefully read the Lancet review, I'm going to reinsert the study's conclusions. The WHO summarized its conclusions in the abstract (read it); to say that the conclusions of a controversial report, which were reported in major media, are irrelevant to the controversy is simply ludicrous.  By the way, if you wish to include the WHO's defense that the media reports "completely misrepresented" their conclusions, then the readers of this article will know what those conclusions were.Chido6d 22:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think your desire to advocate your point of view is getting the better of good writing; a laundry list of the article's conclusions distracts focus from the actual controversy, which centered around the "weak association". The abstract is cited, so anyone can see the WHO's conclusions (including the non-controversial ones) by clicking. The strawman censorship accusations are tired. Can we try to focus on one issue at a time? I'm getting the sense that when a roadblock comes up, you're rapidly switching topics, and it makes this discussion very hard to follow. MastCell Talk 22:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In response to MastCell's remark that "with the recent proliferation of single-purpose accounts and IP's, I can't keep everyone straight':
 * 71.204.186.153 is MickeyKlein
 * 69.181.208.181 is also MickeyKlein
 * 71.72.217.102 is Chido6d
 * Yilloslime 23:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I log in each time now...thank you. A conclusion from an abstract is not a "laundry list", nor is it cherry picking.  One would have to fabricate a strawman argument against including relevant information at a controversy's very heart.  Here's what the Telegraph had to say when they saw the summary, since you refuse to read it: "The results are consistent with there being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer. The summary, seen by The Telegraph, also states: "There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood.""
 * If you like, I would be glad to include that in the article. I would also be happy to add the following: "Despite repeated approaches, nobody at the WHO headquarters in Geneva would comment on the findings..."
 * What roadblock are you referring to? I worked to edit the section fairly for two days on and off in my spare time, and you twisted it beyond recognition.  I quoted sources for the most part -- not selectively -- and used reliable sources.  I thought that's what Wikipedia was all about.  Apparently not.  I see through your efforts to portray Gio Batta Gori as a nit-wit who takes things "out of context".  Why must you try to destroy those who, for good reason, disagree with you?  Is there an issue underlying?Chido6d 00:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to "destroy" anyone, and let's ratchet down the rhetoric a little. Edits on Wikipedia tend to get "twisted beyond recognition"; it's part of participating in an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. You seem to be shifting focus on the Telegraph article; the issue is, what was the controversy about? It was about the claimed association between passive smoking and cancer. There was no controversy, so far as I am aware, about the WHO's findings of "no additional risk" and "no association between childhood ETS and cancer". See: no controversy - therefore not mentioned in the "controversy" section. It's that simple; there's no sleight of hand at work here. MastCell Talk 03:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

 * Care to explain the aspects of the article that you believe violate WP:NPOV, as a tag has been placed on the article? MastCell Talk 23:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the latest round of edits, it appears (sadly) that there is little interest in having an article with any semblance of objectivity or encyclopedic gravitas.

Now, according to this article, we have a controversy over the WHO study that was "entirely engineered" by tobacco companies -- even though the tobacco companies did not conduct the study, write the summary or report, withhold the results of the study, dodge the media, or write the newspaper articles. It has even been acknowledged on this page that the tobacco industry was unsucessful at influencing or delaying the study or the report.

It is also quite clear that for some reason there are some who refuse to let the conclusions of the WHO be known -- even alongside their own explanation for the alleged contradiction. The same findings reported in major newspapers as "astounding", "certain to be an embarrassment" and "surprising" are dismissed as not part of the controversy and erased during edits by activist editors in an attempt to keep this article a sacred piece of their propoganda. Of course, this is only one example of too many to list.

In fairness to the readers of this article, the article has been marked as in dispute.

Removal of the POV tag until there is general agreement to do so will move the dispute to mediation and/or arbitration. Chido6d 00:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "according to this article, we have a controversy over the WHO study that was "entirely engineered" by tobacco companies -- even though the tobacco companies did not conduct the study, write the summary or report, withhold the results of the study, dodge the media, or write the newspaper articles. It has even been acknowledged on this page that the tobacco industry was unsucessful at influencing or delaying the study or the report." Exactly. The controversy was engineered by the tobacco companies, not the study itself. Yilloslime 00:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * OK: I've reinserted this line "and “no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk.” The study also found “no detectable risk after cessation to exposure” to ETS," and removed the POV tag. As I recall, when editors first tried to insert this line, the controversy was being described as one over confidence intervals, and the injection of this line seemed irrelavent and possibly confusing. Now that the confidence interval controversy has it's own section, and the WHO controversy is described as one of alledged supression of negative results, I think it makes sense to have this stuff in there. Note, however, that I don't have access to the newspapers cited, so I cannot confirm that this is their argument. I have removed the POV tag, since this addresses the issue specifically raised by Chido. Yilloslime 01:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Chido6d: Your accusation of "refusing to let the study results be known" is utterly ridiculous, as I was the one who added the link to the study abstract and full text in the first place. Further, you seem to be mistaken about objectivity. An objective article, when describing the IARC study controversy, would not conceal the fact that the WHO, the Lancet, and the American Journal of Public Health (among other reliable sources) all reported that said controversy was engineered - yes, engineered - by the tobacco industry. "Objective", per WP:NPOV, doesn't mean that all views are given equal time; it means that views are represented in the context of their acceptance by experts. Clearly, Chido6d has a problem with the scientific consensus, but taking out their grievances on the article is not the way to go here. MastCell Talk 04:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please provide specific example(s) of "taking out (my) grievances on the article." Hopefully the other issues will be worked out in a timely fashion.
 * As for refusing to let the study results be known, the conclusion which came directly from the abstract was erased over and over. To say that a directly related statement straight from the source of controversy was "confusing" or "not relevant" is deceptive, fraudulent and patronizing.
 * For your information, I added the link to the WHO's press release Do Not Let Them Fool You. I also expanded the quote from the accompaning editorial to be more sweeping in its scope.
 * I wanted to add that I am wondering what you (the four of you) think the WHO controversy even is/was. Please comment on the following timeline: 1) WHO commissions 7-nation study. 2) Tobacco industry monitors study and plans to discredit any potential findings that may harm their interests - specifically increased smoking restrictions/bans in Europe. 3) Study is apparently completed; results don't seem to confirm strong link between passive smoking and cancer or any dangers to children. 4) WHO is accused in the media of suppressing results of report. WHO claims report was not being hidden, but was in process of peer review. 5) Media reports that study results are at odds with WHO's position on passive smoking. 5) WHO rejects the notion, says that passive smoking causes cancer and that study is very much in line with similar research. Chido6d 23:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Still waiting for a response here... Chido6d 00:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Your 4-point plan which you're asking for comments on is original research. I would suggest that the absence of any scientific articles in the study claiming information was suppressed by the WHO is because if you look at the results section of the paper (NB: this is not available in the abstract) their odds ratios and confidence intervals are clearly and openly laid out. That the only reports asserting they suppressed evidence appeared in the national press suggests that the tobacco industry has an ability to place stories there which it doesn't in the scientific press - but because that's my opinion and I haven't found any appropriate independent sources to support that, I won't be adding it to the article.
 * Your own opinion of the timeline is not relevant to and has no place in the article - whereas the assertion that the tobacco companies engineered the "controversy" over the study is referenced - 82 and 83. I'm not clear what changes you seek to make from your posts above, but if you're looking to draw conclusions from your interpretation of the timeline - please don't, as wikipedia guidelines say you shouldn't. Nmg20 14:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If you would get the goop out of your eyes and read my post, I am seeking an understanding of what the controversy actually was. I can't understand why some of us are at odds over it, but if we can't even agree on what the controversy was, then both interpretations will be covered.  It is not "original research" because it is not intended to be included in the article.  I would think that it was clear; if not, hopefully now it is.  Besides, there are five points (not four).
 * I will add that you and a few others have shouted down and harrassed several people away; I was reminded of this when I read over this discussion page a day or two ago. But I'm not going anywhere. Chido6d 20:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I apologise for saying there were only four points rather than five; possibly it was the fact that you have six points, two labelled (5), which confused me.
 * Anyway, (I'll ignore the "goop in your eyes" comment as cheap and unworthy of a response), I need to be clear on where your confusion comes from.
 * (1) You post in a thread titled "POV tag" to say that "it appears (sadly) that there is little interest in having an article with any semblance of objectivity or encyclopedic gravitas". These comments work to figure yourself as an arbiter of what constitutes objectivity and gravitas; they are also completely at odds with your most recent post in which you claim that you can't see why "some of us are at odds over it". You explained why we are at odds with it in your first post in this thread!
 * (2) You dispute that the tobacco companies have managed to engineer controversy over the report. This is itself a point of dispute for two reasons - firstly, that they did so is referenced twice in the article. Secondly, the reasons you give for doubting this - that "the tobacco companies did not conduct the study (etc)" - are only valid if you manage to conflate "the controversy about the study" with "the results of the study". Alas, controversy can be generated around an event you have no control over - for instance, the media frequently call government legislation controversial and stir up that controversy to sell newspapers - they don't compose, pass, or enforce the legislation itself, but are more than capable of creating controversy surrounding it.
 * (3) You then claim that "there are some who refuse to let the conclusions of the WHO be known", that findings are "are dismissed as not part of the controversy and erased during edits by activist editors", and that this is part of "an attempt to keep this article a sacred piece of their propoganda." These claims are both blanket ad hominems against anyone who disagrees with you, and like your opening sentence, figure you as impartial, non-activist, and not promoting your own sort of propaganda.
 * (4) Similarly, you then put in bold type that you've tagged the article "in fairness to the readers of the article", as if you are the only person able to understand what's fair for them.
 * (5) You then post your putative timeline as if it supports your claim that there's no controversy. At no point do you address the two sources cited in the article which detail the tobacco industry's efforts against the WHO study in particular and studies of passive smoking in general.
 * (6) Just for good measure, you again claim that the editors who disagree with you are shouting down and harassing people away from the page, indulging in more ad hominems.
 * I therefore find it extremely disingenuous of you to claim that you can't understand where the disagreement comes from - but I'll lay it out for you.
 * You don't think the tobacco companies were responsible for the controversy surounding the WHO report. Other editors - I'm not sure which four you mean, incidentally - think they were, as do at least two studies from sources which are reliable per wikipedia guidelines.
 * You feel that those editors who disagree with this position are shouting down and harassing other editors away from the article, and you are therefore - commendably - sticking to your guns.
 * So are we, and until and unless you have sources backing up the viewpoint you laid out in your first post in this thread, there's really nothing else to discuss - because your dispute, as I have already said, is original research until that point. Nmg20 21:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This really would be sad if it weren't so funny. I apologize for the remark, but so often you tend to read something and come away with a completely different impression than what it clearly says.  I doubt this is due to a lack of intelligence; I just think you're not paying attention.  For example, I gave very specific reasons for the POV tag.  Next, had you read correctly, I said that I don't understand why were are at odds over the nature of the WHO controversy specifically.  That is why I spelled out my understanding of it -- for constructive feedback -- I am open to learn.  You also accuse me of disputing the tobacco industry's role, when it could not possibly be made more clear than what I said: "Tobacco industry monitors study and plans to discredit any potential findings that may harm their interests - specifically increased smoking restrictions/bans in Europe."  This is my understanding of it.  What's yours?  This is what I've been asking for days.  I am also not opposed to including this information; in fact, I am in favor of it.  Next, the hiding of the WHO's study conclusions (repeated erasure) is not an ad hominem attack.  It has been proven by the actions of other editors.  This same thing happened before I became active.  Just look back at the comments of RayJohnstone.  First some of the findings were edited out, then the entire section disappeared.  It is obviously not enough to have properly sourced information, within Wiki guidelines and weight.
 * Then you accuse me of saying there is no controversy. This is so far out that I don't know how to respond.  Finally, you can't read the talk page being of sound mind and think that some people haven't been bullied away. Chido6d 23:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm glad we agree that the tobacco industry looks to discredit potential findings that may harm their interests. The disagreement we have is over the WHO report specifically, for reasons I've outlined above. As an aside - and I'm getting a little sick of having to repeat this in various forms - saying that I am "not paying attention" doesn't help the discussion, and nor does it change what you've written above. In particular, I would like to see you explain how else the points I raised can be interpreted in the way you now claim.
 * What I would like from you - indeed, what I believe you must do to justify keeping the POV tag on the article - is as follows:
 * (1) Back up your view that the controversy over the WHO report was not engineered by the tobacco companies. Currently there are two sources in there showing that it was - and you have none to contradict that. The POV view here is therefore yours as things stand. For reference to your previous post, I was and am still talking about the WHO controversy specifically.
 * (2) Back up your claim about editors "hiding the WHO's study conclusions" with diffs showing when this has happened, with quotations from the original study showing which conclusion has been "hidden", and with an explanation of why you think the change in wording constitutes "hiding" a conclusion. Repeatedly claiming this has happened without doing this is just impugning the integrity of your fellow editors.
 * (3) You accuse me of claiming you say "there is no controversy". That's a misrepresentation of what I said, which was "You don't think the tobacco companies were responsible for the controversy surounding the WHO report." This is as a direct result of your first post above in which you say: "Now, according to this article, we have a controversy over the WHO study that was "entirely engineered" by tobacco companies -- even though the tobacco companies did not conduct the study, write the summary or report, withhold the results of the study, dodge the media, or write the newspaper articles. It has even been acknowledged on this page that the tobacco industry was unsucessful at influencing or delaying the study or the report." Perhaps you've revised your opinion since that post (00:27 21 July 2007) - I would appreciate you clarifying this if so.
 * (4) I can and do read the talk page and not see people being "bullied away". Again, you're making ad hominem attacks against editors who disagree with you without providing any evidence for your position - and bullying is a particularly unpleasant allegation to make. Evidence, please, again with diffs.
 * Perhaps you can go for a numbered response this time? I'm keen to see you address the points I've raised rather than simply repeating your accusations against other editors on this page without backing them up with evidence. Nmg20 14:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure thing.
 * 1) The WHO controversy revolves around allegations made in the media that the WHO denied. These reports claim that the results of the study did not confirm a link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer among adults in the workplace or at home, that exposure to secondhand smoke poses no added risk of lung cancer to children, and that there is no detectable risk after cessation of exposure to secondhand smoke.  The reports also claim that the WHO hid the results of this study for a time, because the results may be embarrassing.  Other sources blame the controversy on the tobacco industry.  Any objective editor would craft the article around this.  You want me to disprove something; I confess I cannot do that.  Everything is a matter of record and stands on its own merits.
 * 2) The conclusion of the study, from the WHO's own abstract, was erased repeatedly by activist editors. The history is there and you (or anyone) can look at it.  I'm too busy.
 * 3) If you would read or could recall (why you don't is beyond me), you would see that you said this: "You then post your putative timeline as if it supports your claim that there's no controversy." I don't know what I can add to this except that I did not revise my post (proof in the history).
 * 4) People come into the talk page; you attack them; they go. I'm not going to "prove" it.  It's all on this page.  All you have to do is read. Chido6d 03:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, thank you for responding to my points individually - I honestly appreciate it.
 * (1) I understand where you're coming from; the issue from the point of view of changing the article is that you have to be able to prove that these newspaper reports were accurate and not just stories planted by the tobacco industry in order for them to get into the article. The point of those sources detailing the efforts the industry made to attack the WHO study means that there is evidence suggesting these media stories were untrue - and there isn't anything concrete to suggest they're true.
 * (2) If you're too busy to show where this is in the history, why should I bother to? If you're making claims - and attacking other editors as "activist" to boot - you need to have the courtesy to provide some evidence for them; otherwise you're just mudslinging.
 * (3) Fair enough. My intent was to indicate that the newspaper articles were controversial by virtue of the lobbying effort by the tobacco companies (i.e. that there was no controversy around the criticism of the WHO study). I think that was clear in context, but I accept it is confusing, and apologise for that.
 * (4) People have come and gone in the past because of other commitments, because they realised they were wrong, or - shock, horror - because we actually reached consensus as to how the article should be. By way of practicing what I preach, User:70.130.138.210 left after I posted an explanation of my position for him. One user left because a CheckUser revealed he and some of his imaginary friends were sock puppets. A couple have just needed some statistics explained. In none of those threads do I attack the other users: if you're too busy or lazy to back up ad hominem attacks with any evidence, you shouldn't make them. In fact, you shouldn't make them anyway, but it's particularly poor form just to chuck 'em out there.
 * Anyway - I'm afraid I'm going to have to bow out of this discussion for now (no cheering at the back), as I leave Sunday for Niamey to do two months paediatrics - but I will no doubt see some of you in October. Nmg20 04:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope that you have a safe journey.
 * 1) At the heart of our disagreement, finally revealed, is that I don't think it's our job to prove the media reports true or untrue. The role of Wiki, as I understand it, is just to say that it happened, and perhaps to add other reliable sources of opinion.  This is an example of the activism that I decry.
 * I've read the Lancet article, but I don't know of any claims that the media reports are patently and completely untrue. The articles were short and didn't say much, other than what I summarized.  Apparently there is evidence that the tobacco industry encouraged the media to uncover the WHO study (I wouldn't doubt that), and that they certainly planned a campaign against it had the results been different.
 * 2) I'm not all that concerned with the evidence (I admit it), but I am concerned with the accuracy of my allegations. The truth of what I say can be confirmed by the history, if anyone is interested in that.  All I can promise is that what I say will be true.
 * 3) I'm still not sure what you mean, but the apology is accepted. I do try very hard between the charges and countercharges to be fair and honest.  All I ask is the same.
 * 4) I have no problem when people are educated on Wiki policy. I learned from you guys (quickly I hope); newbies come in kind of clueless as to what's going on.  Be more respectful.  I'm not easily intimidated; others probably are.
 * Lastly, if you even read this message, I guess you should remove yourself as a party to mediation -- if you won't have internet access in Niamey and won't be able to participate. Chido6d 04:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I deliberately haven't made myself a party to mediation. Good luck to you all editing while I'm gone. Nmg20 02:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Note on the World Health Organization Report "Controversy"
It is my understanding that the section dealing with the WHO/IARC report serves one valid purpose: it is to document how the tobacco industry has engineered controversy around this study, as part of its efforts to deny or discredit scientific results that exhibited evidence of a causal link between exposure to secondhand smoke and diseases. In line with Wikipedia policies and rules, this purpose may only be met if editors provide authoritative sources on which they back their contribution. The story of how the tobacco industry has engineered the interpretation of the WHO/IARC study and its presentation to the public is well documented in at least three highly authoritative sources:


 * The article by Ong EK and Glantz SA "Tobacco industry efforts subverting International Agency for Research on Cancer's second-hand smoke study" published in April 2000 by The Lancet, a highly respected peer-reviewed medical journal.


 * The Report of the Committee of Experts on Tobacco Industry Documents from the World Health Organization, entitled "Tobacco Company Strategies to Undermine Tobacco Control Activities", published in July 2000. This report documents the inquiry conducted by a panel of renowned experts, at the request of the Director General of the World Health Organization. The inquiry covers different actions by the tobacco industry aimed at undermining WHO's tobacco control efforts. One such action is treated in quite some depth and detail in Chapter IX, entitled, "IARC ETS STUDY" (pp. 193-217), which documents the efforts of the tobacco industry to discredit the IARC study on ETS and distort the interpretation of its results. The chapter concludes with the following statement:


 * Judge Gladys Kessler's Final Opinion in the case United States of America vs. Philip Morris U.S.A. Inc. This official document, established by a person whose raison-d'être is to build an independent opinion, deals with the WHO/IARC case in paragraphs 3581-3600 (pp. 1312-1319). It shows how the tobacco industry's attempt to dicredit the WHO/IARC report was part of a meticulously crafted plan, coordinated industry-wide, which involved, among others, national tobacco manufacturers associations and the public relations firm Burson Marsteller.

To document how the tobacco industry has tried to undermine a scientific study by engineering controversy is an interesting and valid issue, which has its place in an article on passive smoking, since such industry's attempts to interfere with science permeate the entire history of the science on secondhand smoke, and such history would not be complete if this aspect was not covered. Furthermore, this is backed by good sources on which editors can base their contributions.

However, I have the feeling that some editors are here for an entirely different purpose. They seem to want to cover the WHO/IARC report not with the historical perspespective outlined above, but as an opportunity to re-open the "controversy", using Wikipedia as a forum which would - so they seem to hope - offer another chance to push the interpretation of the WHO/IARC report that the tobacco industry has tried to push in 1998 when the WHO/IARC study was released. The text that some editors have proposed to include in the section on the World Health Organization report seems almost quotations from the press release issued by British American Tobacco on 9 March 1997. I think Wikipedia rules do not allow to re-open a discussion which has been settled by the scientific community. Wikipedia is not the proper forum for scientific discussions, no matter their degree of pertinence otherwise.

The best way to deal with the interpretation of the WHO/IARC study is to put it at its proper place in the overall context of the scientific knowledge about the health effects of secondhand smoke. Such overall assessments exist and have been conducted on multiple occasions and in different countries over the last 20 years. The recent assessments all take into account the results of the WHO/IARC study. The overwhelming consensus that emanates from these assessments is that exposure to tobacco smoke causes disease, disability and death. Such assesments, made by leading public health authorities, are exactly the type of authoritative sources that we, Wikipedia editors, should use as sources for our contributions. Appendix 2 of a recent publication by the World Health Organization, "Protection from Exposure to Second-hand Tobacco Smoke" provides a list of such authoritative assessments:

--Dessources 18:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow.Yilloslime 19:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Humorously noted:
 * 1992 EPA report: included
 * 1998 IARC/WHO report: missing
 * Chido6d 23:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course the IARC/WHO report is not included--this is a list of reviews, monographs, and summary reports, NOT as list of individual studies. It would be awesome to incorporate this into the article. It's big, but given the amount space already dedicated to non-mainstream views, I don't think including the above list would run into problems with WP:WEIGHT.Yilloslime 17:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That wouldn't necessarily be a problem (though, as you noted, the size is of some concern). It should be attributed to the WHO, and since a lot of this information is incorporated into the article in some way or another, any duplication should be avoided. Chido6d 23:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The above table should not be attributed to the WHO - it should be attributed to the thirteen individual sources which make it up, as it is above. Nmg20 15:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The list was compiled by the WHO, and if you incorporate it into the article bearing the title Twenty Years of Scientific Consensus -- a title which was assigned by the WHO -- then it will be attributed to the WHO. Chido6d 20:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Bold type doesn't make it so, my friend. Those sources can and should be cited individually, and if anyone attempts to whitewash them out so they can attempt to discredit the list by promoting the current bout of spurious and ill-informed criticism of the WHO, I'll put them right back in. Nmg20 20:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The bold type wasn't for emphasis, it was to help you read. For example, I didn't say anything about citing the sources individually.  Before now, neither did you.  You seemed to intend to include a volumonous list, and if they are included as such, with the title assigned by the WHO, then the WHO will get credit. Chido6d 23:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You must mean apart from in my message seven lines above this where I say "it should be attributed to the thirteen individual sources which make it up", right? So thanks for offering me help reading - but quit the personal attacks, please. Nmg20 14:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to include a note here which helps elucidate the resolution to the controversy in the UK. I think it is important to note that The Sunday Telegraph were taken to the Press Complaints Commission by Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) UK as they felt the article was misleading. After a lengthy investigation, the PCC dismissed ASH's complaints.

I think the current state of the article may cause some readers to believe that The Telegraph set out to deliberately mislead, whereas the official regulatory body of the UK press found that this was not the case.

Timclarke85 22:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure... do you have a good source detailing the Press Complaints Commission investigation? MastCell Talk 23:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Take your pick:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1998/10/25/nsmok25.html

http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_a_l/dominic_lawson/article345914.ece

http://www.newash.org.uk/ash_7720vacc.htm

Timclarke85 01:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry to both of you, but this is a non-issue at a minute level of detail. The section on the WHO "controversy" does not make any claim about The Sunday Telegraph, but clearly states that the media coverage was engineered by the tobacco firms, not by the newspapers themselves. There is no reason to overload an already long article with an irrelevant detail.
 * --Dessources 08:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

If Mastcell agrees this is the case, then I will abide by his decision and edit the Telegraph / ASH articles to include the PCC investigation. Perhaps Dessources is right and it doesn't belong in the Passive smoking article.

Anyway - I also believe the article is slightly dismissive of the questioning of RRs of less than 2. It's worth mentioning that some epidemiologists, Richard Peto and Richard Doll to name but two, have questioned the value of RRs between 1 and 2. For example, in their book, The Causes of Cancer(1981), Peto and Doll had this to say:

“when relative risk lies between 1 and 2 ... problems of interpretation may become acute, and it may be extremely difficult to disentangle the various contributions of biased information, confounding of two or more factors, and cause and effect”.

So there does seem to be some historical credence to the notion that RRs of between 1 and 2 are questionable; confirmed by 2 eminent authorities on smoking-related diseases, nonetheless.

Timclarke85 12:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Cough.

Timclarke85 13:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh joy! More FORCES dogma/doggerel... Doll and Peto - who are indeed undoubted authorities on smoking-related diseases - are talking about individual studies here. They are not talking about repeated findings across multiple studies and the meta-analyses these allow, and regardless of that misquoting people like these to attack the dangers of passive smoking is extraordinarily perverse.
 * Cough indeed.
 * Also, Timclarke, and without wishing to insinuate anything - can I ask if you've actually read Peto and Doll yourself? As in, have you read the book Causes of cancer, or did you pick the quote up from google?
 * If anyone would like to highlight which findings they are questioning on the relative risk front - it's not clear from Tim's post. I'll try to find, post, and comment on the most recent meta-analyses here if anyone gets this before Sunday night, and we can talk through relative risk... Nmg20 00:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not a member of Forces.

Doll is not currently an authority. He is dead. Please use tenses correctly. It's really very simple.

I must admit to not having read The Causes of Cancer. It is, however, available from a library I use, and I will get it out and attempt to contextualise the relevant passage. Like most wiki users, I am a layman, and I make no bones about it. Perhaps you are not, but it doesn't warrant your condescending superciliousness and baseless accusations regarding my affiliation with any specific organisation. Perhaps the passage could be included in relation to individual studies if what you claim is indeed correct, but it is nevertheless worthy of discussion.

I was merely offering something up for discussion.

Timclarke85 14:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing that out, Tim; I well remember Doll's obit in the Times . His being dead doesn't mean he ceases to be an authority, however - if it did, you wouldn't be able to cite his books any more, now would you?
 * It seems you took my comments about FORCES to be about you - they weren't. I have a hearty dislike for the crap FORCES come up with, and I do regard it as rubbish - but I did not regard your post as rubbish, and if you read the first paragraph again I hope you'll see that if I was being condescending and supercilious, it was to the FORCES claims and not to you personally. Nowhere did I claim you were affiliated with FORCES - I merely made the reasonable assumption that you got this information from their website, as they're the source of this particular bit of misinformation.
 * That said, I was perhaps posting in exasperation. I was doing so because - while I think lay input is great, and am myself only tangentially qualified as a statistician - I feel very strongly that people - qualified or lay - citing sources should have read them themselves. The cyclical rehashing of a few core "issues" on this talk page every few months could be avoided if people actually had to read the sources they bring up before doing so. That said, I do appreciate your honesty to admit you haven't read the book, and respect your intention to.
 * On relative risk, I'm all for highlighting more and less robust results where only a single study exists on a particular topic. Nmg20 16:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that, Nmg - I appreciate it.

I can't remember where I got hold of the quotation now - it wasn't Forces though. Perhaps it was from another site which directly lifted the quote from Forces.

On the 'cyclical rehashing' - this page is far too large for people to trawl through to ascertain whether or not an issue has been raised previously. There's no real way of addressing this though.

Anyway - would a section on epidemiology and its status (legally) in proving specific causation be appropriate for this article and / or the epidemiology article? I'm still in the process of researching this. Is continuing worth my while?

Timclarke85 17:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure - like I said, my post was probably borderline for referring myself to WP:Don't be a dick, so I was outta line!
 * You're quite right about the size of the page; it would be great if we could find a way of preserving the archives in a readable format - perhaps we should think about summarising key arguments at the top of the page when we archive them? Mind you, it might still get buried...
 * In terms of where this sort of thing should be discussed, there's some discussion (including Milloy, one of the recurring villains of this page!) in the relative risk article, and I guess that's probably a better place for it in that I don't think the criticisms apply to RRs in passive smoking for all the reasons laid out in the RR article (evidence as a whole is convincing, RR>3 only needed for new/biologically improbable findings, small RRs which are clinically relevant are important in medicine). Nmg20 00:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In esponse to Tim Clarke's question directly above, I would say, "No, it's not worth your while." I think "a section on epidemiology and its status (legally) in proving specific causation" is a little too far off-topic for the entry on passive smoking. Maybe it'd be appropriate for the relative risk page. Also note that the idea that RR < 2.0 are not significant, in addition to flying in the face of well established statistical norms, the idea was manufactuted by the tobacco companies. See Ong EK, Glantz SA (2001). "Constructing "sound science" and "good epidemiology": tobacco, lawyers, and public relations firms". American Journal of Public Health 91 (11): 1749-57. . Yilloslime (t) 01:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Use of Ad Hominem to Exclude Evidence
Ad Hominem As defined by the current edit means: "An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim."

This pattern of reasoning is being employed to block substantive scientific evidence generated by tobacco company funded reasearch. '' This does not address the issue of substance in terms of scientific inquiry. ''

Whether a scientific claim is valid or not has nothing to do with the character of the scientist or the money he employed to put together the experiment or study.

The World Health Organization report experimentally concluded that certain kinds of ETS do not cause lung cancer and may have a preventative effect. It is ad hominem to dismiss these experimental conclusions because the scientists who cite them are funded by the tobacco industry. Mickeyklein 19:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

On a further note, what I assert is that if you believe tobacco funded experiments and studies are biased because of the Tobacco companies financial interest, the logical path is to substantively demonstrate the bias in the data itself. That is, it is not enough to attack evidence because it is published with help from Tobacco companies, but you could attack it because of substantive flaws in the research that you have reason to believe stems from that bias.

It would be the same if the Tobacco companies attacked the WHO study because it was funded by a government organization who's power only increases with regulation (the regulation is only possible if the data comes out "right").

That would be ad hominem.

This ad hominem approach is, in fact, common among smoking activists who dismiss government data simply because of the bias towards regulation friendly results and the government's long history of lying about the safety effects of recreational drugs.

It is perfectly reasonable, on the other hand, for the Tobacco companies to report substantive conclusions of the data and allege regulatory bias based on that, and, at the same time, for government organizations to find substantive errors in tobacco industry research and allege on the same card. Mickeyklein 19:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC) Mickeyklein 19:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a groundless accusation. Many Wikipedia contributions by necessity belong, or look like they belong to the ad hominem type of argument. They are not fallacious: they are simply the application of the Wikipedia rules. Indeed, one Wikipedia key rule is: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." (emphasis added - ) It is therefore not suprising that, central to the arguments discussed among Wikipedians, will be the "reliability" and "reputation" of the third-parties which are used as sources for information, which explains that inherently these arguments look a lot like they belong to the ad hominem type. However, these types of arguments, in the Wikipedia context, are perfectly legitimate and non fallacious - they are even expected. It must be said that, as a third party and provider of information, the tobacco industry has a very poor reputation and is generally not considered as a reliable source of information in the area of science that looks at the consequence of their products on human health. For example, I understand that for US wikieditors, it must be difficult to accept as a reliable source someone who has been found guilty of racketeering by a court of law of their country.


 * Ironically, Mickeyklein's accusation may itself be considered an instance of an ad hominem argument (Gödelians will appreciate the self-referential aspect of this situation). Indeed, Mickeyklein has opted for proferring such accusation of ad hominem against us instead of addressing the substance of our arguments.


 * To learn more about ad hominem arguments, and to get good definitions to help separating the fallacious ad hominem arguments from the non fallacious, I recommend the book by Douglas Walton, "Ad Hominem Arguments" (Studies in Rhetoric and Communication, The University of Alabama Press, 1998).


 * --Dessources 21:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I echo the above, further noting that the bias Mickeyklein wants to see has been demonstrated. See Barnes & Bero, referenced in the article and available here: . Tobacco-industry funding affects the conclusions of studies, so is highly relevant. Also, conflicts of interest in research in general are increasingly relevant, which is why every major medical journal requires its authors to disclose their funding sources. It's hardly ad hominem, and the bias Mickeyklein is dismissing has been amply cataloged. On a more basic level, please stop arguing your opinions. This is not a discussion forum or a blog. We discuss how to properly utilize reliable sources. Please provide some, instead of using Wikipedia as a soapbox. See the talk page guidelines for more. MastCell Talk 22:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

First off, if what I'm saying are my "opinions", then I guess I'll wait until the mediator or arbitrator tells me to stop editing them in.

As for the bias, What about insisting in a p=.05 confidence interval is so radical to scientific norms? All that you guys are saying is that the tobacco companies tried to publicize scientific findings favorable to their cause while trying to rebut evidence against them. Frankly, I don't see how this is any different from the government trying to publicize findings in favor of their regulatory goals and trying to rebut findings contrary to their regulatory goals.

This is entirely different from showing substantive bias such as showing the Gori studies were conducted outside of scientific norms to achieve those ends. So, once again, what deviation from historic scientific norms does Gori show when he insists on a p=05 confidence interval for confounding factors? Mickeyklein 16:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * All of this is covered in the cited sources (Lancet article, Am J Pub Health articles, etc). Insisting on viewing individual studies out of context of the whole available evidence is contrary to scientific norms. Claiming that meta-analysis is somehow suspect, when in fact it is the widely-used, very powerful statistical tool, is contrary to scientific norms. Trying to reshape epidemiological standards to keep selling a harmful product is contrary to scientific norms. Trying to exert financial pressure on scientific organizations or buy off experts is contrary to scientific norms. Tobacco companies are documented, by reliable sources, to have done all of the above. It's not my opinion. This is not a forum to re-debate the topic. Read the sources, cite your own, and propose specific changes to the article, because at the moment you are misusing this talk page. MastCell Talk 17:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You are misusing this article to promote anti smoking activism and I will not stop posting new sources and defending the ones I have.

Historically, the norm of statistical evidence was that data with a null below the p=05 confidence interval was probably poorly controlled for confounding factors. Intrinsically, null data could have a stronger correlation with better confounding control and thus is traditionally called "weak".

Confounding factors are rife with second hand smoke. First off there is the dose response relationship. This is what Gori was talking about. With such slight, null data, one would expect that to prove anything worthwhile one would have to show a dose curve to show that the very slight, null increase recorded is really from an increased dose of second hand smoke. This would differentiate the slight, null difference, from other factors such as diet, family history of cancer, other drug use ect...

This might go a bit in explaining how the WHO study found a protective effect for children but a harmful effect for adults.Mickeyklein 17:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Mickeyklein, you should not have to wait for an authority figure to tell you that accusing another user of "misusing this article to promote anti smoking activism" is unacceptable. MastCell has given you abundant sources in his post above explaining why you are - to put it bluntly - wrong. You show no evidence of having read them or attempted to assimilate the information they contain, instead resorting to an ad hominem attack which is quite without any independent sources.
 * Let us be clear: you posting to say "confounding factors are rife" is your opinion. For it to be other than your opinion - and for it to be worthy of consideration for inclusion in the article - you need to provide appropriate (independent, peer-reviewed, from a respectable scientific journal) sources to back that up. The only source you provide is from a privately-funded think tank with no peer review - and that isn't acceptable. What this means is that your views have no place in the article, and I'd ask that until and unless you are willing to tackle the scientific literature on this subject, you stop wasting everyone's time with your opinions. Nmg20 15:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Shocking New Source
I call this a shocking new source because it blew me out of my chair, but last months issue of Nature has a feature news article claiming second hand smoke dangers are scientifically controversial:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v447/n7148/full/4471049a.html

For those of you without redic university web access, a full quote here:

"Despite all the strongly worded advertising campaigns, the health benefits of smoking bans for non-smokers have been controversial. One of the biggest rows concerns the links between second-hand smoke and heart disease — an argument in which Glantz has been a key player. Richard Peto at the University of Oxford, who has been studying tobacco use for more than 30 years, says: "Passive smoking must kill some people, but the big question is how many.""

"But the data supporting the link between second-hand smoke and cardiovascular disease are more controversial. The surgeon general's report states that "pooled relative risks from meta-analysis indicate a 25–30% increase in risk of coronary heart disease from exposure to second-hand smoke". Although most epidemiologists think there is a link, it's the size of the effect that surprises them.

"It seems to me that a 25% increase is not plausible," says John Bailar, a biostatistician at the National Academy of Sciences in Washington DC, who thinks the effect should be proportional to exposure, as it is for lung cancer. "Regular smoking only increases the risk of cardiovascular disease by 75%, so how could second-hand smoke, which is much more dilute, have an effect one-third that size"? Bailar says that even if a non-smoker took in 10% as much smoke as a smoker, which is a high-end estimate, his increased risk would be only 7.5%."

In time... truth! Mickeyklein 21:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from using Wikipedia as your personal blog. This is an abuse of Wikipedia and is wasteful of our time as Wikipedia editors. If such behavior persists, I will feel obliged to lodge a formal complaint.
 * Thanks for your understanding.


 * --Dessources 21:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see the article making a blanket statement that "the dangers of secondhand smoke are controversial". Even the most "skeptical" epidemiologist quoted said that "Passive smoking must kill some people, but the big question is how many." Also that the evidence for lung cancer is essentially undisputed, but that the evidence for heart disease is still under discussion. I guess I don't see this as a bombshell, especially as the article repeatedly points up the scientific consensus in the area of passive smoking and lung cancer, as well as the benefits of smoking bans in helping smokers quit. But I'm happy to work the article's findings into our article here. I should add, along the lines of Dessources, that this is not a "shocking new source", and your method of presenting it here ("In time... truth!") is hardly appropriate. MastCell Talk 22:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * POV tag is back in place because of recent edits by Dessources. I have consented to mediation.  I strongly feel that Dessources should join. Chido6d 22:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Your "shocking new source" is a dead duck. John Bailar's claims, which he repeated to Science, were made 8 years ago, and they have been more than amply addressed in the mean time. The answer given by prof. S. Glantz in 1999 (see ) still holds today, and has been reinforced by numerous studies which have accumulated in the intervening years. These studies are listed in Chapter 8 of the CalEPA report "Environmental Health Hazard Assessment of Environmental Tobacco Smoke". The point made by biostatistician John Bailar has been specifically addressed in the CalEPA report. I quote:


 * --Dessources 15:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The broader point is that the article asserts there exists a scientific debate on the issue, with differing legitimate opinions.

This is in stark contrast to the editors of this page who believe the governments opinion is an absolute finality with scientific matters (like they made irrefutable conclusions about Marijuana, LSD, ecstacy and everything else they gave unbiased non regulatory scientific answers to). 69.181.208.181 16:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please read the Nature article more carefully. It in fact makes clear that:
 * There is no doubt that passive smoking harmful; the debate is over how harmful (or as one "skeptical" epidemiologist bluntly put it in the article, "Passive smoking must kill some people, but the big question is how many.")
 * There is clear consensus that the link between passive smoking and lung cancer quoted in the Surgeon General's report is accurate (""These are generally accepted numbers," says epidemiologist Alfredo Morabia, at Queens College in New York, who cites the 2006 US surgeon general's report... For lung cancer, there is general agreement with the report's assessment.")
 * There is debate about how much improvement in non-smokers' health is attributable to smoking bans
 * A minority of epidemiologists question how strong the link between passive smoking and heart disease is
 * One "skeptical" epidemiologist is concerned that the study results are being overinterpreted into broad smoking bans (""We should focus efforts on the remaining areas in which workers are not protected," he says. "My biggest concern is for the waiters and bartenders who spend 40 hours each week in very smoky environments.") Note he doesn't dispute the harms of passive smoking for those with heavy exposure; he questions where to draw the line between meaningful and inconsequential exposure to a clearly harmful substance.
 * Of course, I think Nature is a highly reliable source and it would be worthwhile integrating the article's findings. However, the grandstanding with which you presented the article concerns me, in that you may be reading far too much into the article's rather conservatively phrased findings. Next, please stop referring to this as "government's opinion"; while nearly all American and European govermental health authorities agree on the dangers of passive smoking, the WHO has no governing authority, and nor do the American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, American Medical Association, American Thoracic Society, British Thoracic Society, etc etc. Finally, I do find it a bit odd that you're willing to see conspiracies everywhere except for the one place they've been indisputably documented to exist: on the part of the tobacco industry. MastCell Talk 17:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * So does anyone want to make a concrete proposal on how to intregrate this source into the article, or are we just spinning our wheels? Yilloslime 21:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, thank you for refocusing me. I have added a draft of a section based on the Nature article. By the way, the coolest thing about the Nature article is that it contains a large graphic list of countries which have enacted smoking bans. The source cited by Nature for this information? Wikipedia. Now that's shocking. MastCell Talk 22:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * OK so someone proposes a source for the article, and it is "grandstanding", "personal blog(ing)" and "soapboxing". Hmm.
 * To your edit, I would add an example of how some believe the alleged dangers are exaggerated. The one by Dr. Bailar is good. Chido6d 00:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough... I have added that quote, along with its context from the Nature article. MastCell Talk 03:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I will soon find a secondary source for it, but here is some more from Peto's testimony that is cited in the nature article:
 * "Q401 Lord Skidelsky: Could I draw you out on one further thing. You have been unwilling to quantify the risks from passive smoking.
 * Professor Sir Richard Peto: Yes."
 * What would this say about the scientific value of the risk factors found in previous studies?Mickeyklein 17:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the best quote from Peto is the "passive smoking certainly kills people, but the question is how many" one from Nature. But let's decide what we want to present here; yes, we need to accurately present any significant minority view, but not at so great a length that it receives undue weight. MastCell Talk 17:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Concerning the debate about whether the risk of CHD is overestimated, a balanced treatment of this point requires that we also treat the other side of the coin: some scientists do think that the risk is actually substantially underestimated. I have modified the section accordingly, backing my text with a good reference (New Scientist; I could also have used the BMJ).
 * --Dessources 00:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You hit the nail on the head, but a main problem of this article is that it doesn't do that. Let me explain.  It is clear enough by the article text, even to a person of less than average intelligence, that there is general scientific agreement about passive smoking.  On the other hand, there is notable dissent and controversy.  Both sides should be accurately and fairly represented in a way that does not violate WP Weight.


 * What we have here, though, are some editors who will not allow any minority view to be described without attempts to discredit, vilify, demonize and reinforce over and over that said view is contrary to the scientific majority. This is advocacy.


 * One example would be the description of Gio Batta Gori as a full-time tobacco industry consultant. The source for this claim is his name on a roster at the University of California San Francisco from the year 2002.  It does not say he is full-time, or what he is doing in 2007.  In short, it is not current or reliable.  My removal of this poorly sourced allegation was reverted immediately.  There was also a suggestion, in the text (before I removed it), that anyone who does not believe in the majority view must be taking things out of context.  Yes, there was an attempt to insert this point of view into the text.
 * Another example is the boxed text for emphasis. Observe the G.B. Gori section and the WHO section.
 * For yet another classic and timely example, see the post immediately preceding this one (which occurred while I was writing this).


 * This activism inflates the size of the article, causes disputes and throws the article into mediation.


 * We have erasures for no good reason, deletions, twisting and slanting, emphasizing and downplaying, poorly sourced accusations, false reports of vandalism...all marks of immaturity and subjectivity that have no place on this site. Chido6d 00:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there notable scientific dissent and controversy? The only evidence of any ongoing scientific dispute is the Nature piece, which is used heavily as a source in the article at present. If you believe there is notable scientific dissent not covered in that article, please provide a source documenting it. Scientific dissent can usually be found in the peer-reviewed scientific literature or even the mainstream media, not in the Cato Institute's house journal. MastCell Talk 02:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=389463&in_page_id=1774&in_a_source

will this work? 69.181.208.181 04:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It might be worth citing, but the House of Lords Economics Committee is not a scientific body (and, by the bye, has a recent track record of dubious reports on scientific issues), so it should be in the controversy section, not part of the discussion of scientific evidence. The report is really more relevant to Smoking bans since its main point is to claim that health risks to workers, while real, are not large enough to justify a ban.JQ 04:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The committee was charged with investigating health risk analysis conducted on behalf of the government. They found the spectacular claims based on studies showing second hand smoke causes cancer were promoted by government organizations in support of a greater policy goal. To show I'm not being a conspiracy nut, here's a quote from Peto:


 * "(Q400): Yes, certainly, as you know, you are going to get people who are enthusiastic about tobacco control wanting to have studies demonstrating the hazards of passive smoke, and, as a result, you will get some claims that are not justified."


 * The committee took his testimony as meaning that there was a political motive behind the inflation of data and misleading statements by leading health authorities. This is a serious point of contention as it casts the bias of the government health organizations into doubt.Mickeyklein 05:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a good addition to the "Smoking Ban" section of the article, in my view. I also planned to show (using reliable sources) that smoking bans were about a lot more than protecting the health of non-smokers.  The Garfinkel study, one of the earliest mentioning this topic (1981), has also been controversial.   I'm still looking for feedback on my WHO controversy timeline and summary above. Chido6d 11:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I may be missing something, but the comments I've seen from Gori come from her role in the Cato Institute, which is quite a way from being a reliable source per wikipedia guidelines - it's a think tank which has no peer-review process and which has attracted repeated criticism for its funding sources (yes, I am aware they have also run articles contrary to the interests of big business). It's not a reliable source, and while it might have a place in the article, it's not comparable to an article in the smallest scientific journal out there, never mind the body of meta-analysis from the major scientific journals.
 * Similarly, the Daily Mail doesn't match up to the scientific journals - it's an infamously right-wing newspaper with a penchant for appealing to the staunchly middle-English! - and compared to Nature it's a comic in scientific terms. Nmg20 15:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's another article, it appeared in the journal  Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology , this one aims at explaining the flaws in passive smoking meta-analysis. Page four is the most interesting, it shows what the meta would look like if the government published all the studies it conducted on second hand smoke, including the two million person studies they conducted in the early 60's that showed no link whatsoever between second hand smoke and coronary heart disease. http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2057837379-7386.html 69.181.208.181 16:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, Regulatory Toxicology & Pharmacology is the journal of the International Society of Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. Both the Society and the journal are heavily industry-sponsored, and are funded by R.J. Reynolds tobacco, among others. In fact, Gio Batto Gori was both president of the Society and editor of the journal (small world). The society's mission statement is to promote "sound science" (familiar-sounding words). Papers appearing in the journal had a tendency to appear in Philip Morris memos prior to their official publication. The Society was utilized by the tobacco industry to hold "competing" workshops to offset potentially damaging results (, see last paragraph). Perhaps most interestingly, the article in question, though funded by the Tobacco Institute, was touted by Philip Morris for use "with external audiences as examples of third parties' views." . Here's the budget item in which Gori bills the Tobacco Institute for the Society's activities:.
 * Levois and Layard, the study authors, were also paid by the tobacco industry Layard was a private consultant to the Tobacco Institute, engaged partly to go after Glantz . My personal favorite is this, in which Levois and Layard pitch their article proposal to the tobacco companies, asking for $25,000 each to write it. Layard's goals were spelled out along with his funding  Layard and Levois did such good work that the industry was sad to lose them when they became "uncomfortable with their visibility" . I guess what I'm saying is that I don't consider that article, or that journal, particularly reliable sources in this context, except perhaps as an example of the tobacco industry's efforts to discredit the findings while keeping their hands hidden. MastCell Talk 18:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

True enough they received tobacco industry funding, but where is the bias present in the substance of the source? The analytics of it seams fair enough. 69.181.208.181 22:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

We seem to have established by experiment the truth of at least one statement in the article. Whenever anyone digs up a source that seems to contradict mainstream science, it turns out that Big Tobacco is footing the bills. JQ 23:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That should be a cause of suspicion for the government health organizations. The tobacco funded studies are finding extremely obvious scientific flaws in the ETS research that all these vaunted health organizations appear completely blind to. These tempt me to challenge the government sources as violating Wikipedia's source requirement, as it is obvious on prima facia examination that government sources repeatedly manipulate data sets and make claims that are clearly not justified by the data. 69.181.208.181 14:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That is one interpretation, certainly. Another interpretation, which is actually backed by sources suitable for Wikipedia, is that the tobacco-funded studies are designed to spin the actual data and create just enough doubt about the conclusions to forestall tobacco regulation. But regardless of which interpretation you happen to believe, we're not re-arguing the case. We're trying to represent views in proportion to their acceptance among experts in the field. There is no evidence of any significant ongoing scientific controversy over the link between passive smoking and lung cancer. I know you like to believe that only "government organizations" are pushing a link, but even RJR Tobacco and Philip Morris have accepted its existence. Finally, the fact that you find the "government sources" (i.e. all sources presented thus far except for the Cato Institute) to be unsatisfactory does not make them unreliable. You're free to believe that the Surgeon General, WHO, IARC, American Cancer Society, CDC, American Thoracic Society, etc are unreliable sources, but those are generally well-accepted sources of verifiable information for Wikipedia's standards. MastCell Talk 15:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

"Spin the actual data". Wow, a p=05 confidence interval is "spin".

The claim goes that most individual investigations cannot meet that impossible bar. That is very true. they cannot meet the bar because the data is  statistically insignificant  and using statistically insignificant data to compile a statistically significant aggregate is called in the words of old school "you actually have to prove it" science as '' garbage in - garbage out. ''

Check this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_cannabis#Early_studies_on_efficacy

Now this statement: http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2006/NEW01362.html

Does the pattern of government scientific treatment of recreational drugs come to mind?

And besides, the dissenting writers are experts, they just happen to be paid by the tobacco industry. All of the articles I have cited were written by science PhD's writing on direct scientific issues using traditional rules of scientific hypothesis testing. Mickeyklein 15:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The argument that these authors "just happen to be paid by the tobacco industry" is much less tenable given the now-available ocnfidential tobacco-industry documentation of how this relationship actually worked. The relationship between tobacco-industry funding and "just happening" to find results favorable to the industry were conclusively demonstrated here, by authors from Berkeley. They found that tobacco-industry funding made a study 88 times more likely to conclude there was no link between passive smoking and health risk, with a p of <0.001 which I'm sure we can all agree is significant. As to combining data from multiple smaller studies which show a trend but fail to demonstrate statisical significance, that is known as meta-analysis and is a widely used epidemiologic and statistical tool. MastCell Talk 16:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Check this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_cannabis#Early_studies_on_efficacy

Now this statement: http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2006/NEW01362.html

It would appear that the fact that the results of a medical marijuana study was endorsed by government health authority would have 100% correlation to showing no medical benefit.

Note that on the wiki page for medical marijuana the results of the FDA approved study are shown even though they did not endorse the results. Mickeyklein 16:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

From meta-analysis, "n statistics, a meta-analysis combines the result of several studies that address a set of related research hypotheses. The first meta-analysis was performed by Karl Pearson in 1904, in an attempt to overcome the problem of reduced statistical power in studies with small sample sizes; analyzing the results from a group of studies can allow more accurate data analysis..."

"A weakness of the method is that sources of bias are not controlled by the method. A good meta-analysis of badly designed studies will still result in bad statistics. Robert Slavin has argued that only methodologically sound studies should be included in a meta-analysis, a practice he calls 'best evidence meta-analysis'."

The one thing passive smoke studies do not lack is sample size. The original CPS I-II studies were done with over one million subjects. A great number of the other studies were done with hundreds of thousands and the WHO study was case controlled with over 1500 subjects and 2200 control, which is very large for a clinical trial.

What they do lack is the traditional confounding for bias. The p=05 interval is traditional because it holds the researchers to a high bias standard and makes them calculate more confounding variables. Meta'ing a bunch of barely null .10 results into a higher confidence interval is just the abuse that Slavin is talking about. Mickeyklein 16:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, this is not a forum for Wikipedia editors to debate their ideas on on epidemiology and statistics. Please stop drawing the analogy with marijuana; these are completely different situations and levels of regulation, and it is possible (common, even) to believe that the U.S. government has been both too strict in regulating marijuana and too lax in regulating tobacco. In any case, bringing up marijuana regulation to try to undermine the sources cited here is not going to be an effective tactic. MastCell Talk 16:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I will keep bringing it up because it illustrates the political nature of government health organizations when they publish evidence concerning recreational substances. Overwhelmingly, when the government reports on the health effects of recreational substances they alter the data to make it appear more harmful than an objective study would reveal.

They did the same thing with Marijuana as they are doing with Tobacco. The FDA approved study on medical marijuana is analogous to the WHO study on passive smoke. When the results came back wrong, the government simply pretended the evidence didn't exist and declared "no sound science" existed on the matter.

Although a motive is purely speculative, a natural self interest exists between the government and # data. With data that shows a recreational substance is harmful the government has expanded opportunities to increase regulation and thereby, its own power and employment numbers. With Tobacco, this is potentially seen by the simultaneous effort to publish studies showing ETS harmful and pass regulations to control ETS.

And I agree that Wikipedia is not a place for non-sourced opinion, so here is an example of a meta study legitimately criticized for ignoring confounding variables and lumping null data.

http://www.jstor.org/view/00346543/ap040282/04a00050/0?currentResult=00346543%2bap040282%2b04a00050%2b0%2c0F&searchUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jstor.org%2Fsearch%2FBasicResults%3Fhp%3D25%26si%3D1%26gw%3Djtx%26jtxsi%3D1%26jcpsi%3D1%26artsi%3D1%26Query%3DRobert%2BSlavin%2Bmeta-analysis%26wc%3Don Mickeyklein 17:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's a source published in a Mathematics magazine criticizing the tobacco meta-analysis.
 * http://www.jstor.org/view/08834237/di984058/98p0135e/0?currentResult=08834237%2bdi984058%2b98p0135e%2b0%2cFFFF1F&searchUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jstor.org%2Fsearch%2FBasicResults%3Fhp%3D25%26si%3D1%26gw%3Djtx%26jtxsi%3D1%26jcpsi%3D1%26artsi%3D1%26Query%3Dpublication%2Bbias%2Bin%2Bmeta-analysis%2Bgivens%26wc%3Don
 * Mickeyklein 17:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * All of this misses the point: Wikipedia articles are supposed to present the mainstream views on topics, and notable minority views may be included only in proportion to how much traction they have in the real world. Sure, there are studies that do no demonstrate links between ETS and maladies X, Y, & Z. And there are notable critics of the scientific consensus. But we can only set aside a certain amount of space in the article for these minority views, and I'd argue we're already exceding the number of words these viewpooints deserve. Please see WP:WEIGHT Yilloslime 17:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That kind of hard word count should be for the mediator/arbitrator to decide, although I agree that the weight policy exists I want to appeal to a wikipedia authority to find out what the official ratio should be for this page.


 * We should come to a consensus, though, on a list of areas for legitimate dissent, and then people like me and Chido can work on a draft that makes it concise for word count. Perhaps with broad consent we could redraft the entire dissent section to include the new data without making it much longer.Mickeyklein 18:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Yilloslime about weight. I should also mention, along the lines of "traction", that the study you cite by Givens et al., on publication bias in meta-analysis, was considered by CalEPA in their summary. CalEPA had significant concerns about the validity of Givens' method for accounting for publication bias, and noted that any Bayesian adjustment had a lot of wiggle room depending on the parameters applied (see here, it's in appendix B around page B-118 or so). The point being that these individual primary sources have been considered. You may disagree with how CalEPA, or the Surgeon General, weighted those studies, but WP:NOR specifically cautions against using primary sources to advance a novel conclusion, particularly when doing so conflicts with how those articles have been interpreted by reliable secondary sources (e.g. Surgeon General, WHO, etc). And it should come as no surprise that Tweedie, a coauthor, was described as one of "our scientists" in a Tobacco Institute memo regarding a presentation he was to give to the EPA Here's his funding approval from the tobacco industry, in which they mention how "highly valued" their relationship with him is . MastCell Talk 18:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, the mediator will not come in and tell us how many words or how much weight something should be given. Even the Arbitration Committee typically shys away from such content decisions. There really are no "higher authorities" on Wikipedia, for the most part. It's up to us, with the help of mediation, to come to some kind of agreement on how these things can be presented in a manner than respects Wikipedia's policies. MastCell Talk 18:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Arbitrators do decide content matters in cases of advocacy, which I believe you are committing egregiously on this page. I believe that you reject my sources as contrary to anti smoking activist opinions more reliably than you reject them for substantive reasons. You are abusing this page for your personal political opinions and I hope to heaven that I or someone else will be able to stop you. Mickeyklein 18:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

In this case, what you call my "personal political opinions" (which, by the way, I doubt you know as well as you think you do) are shared by every major medical, scientific, and public-health body to have examined the question, as well as by RJR Tobacco and Philip Morris. You, on the other hand, appear to be advocating that a small-minority opinion be given undue weight, invoking all sorts of conspiracy theories, anti-government rhetoric, analogies to marijuana regulation, etc, all of which are unsupported by any evidence other than your persistent talk page opinionating. MastCell Talk 18:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * So if Philip Morris believes the link exists and also funded both synthetic analysis works about publication bias, why should the sources be excluded for bias?


 * Here are the links again
 * http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2057837379-7386.html
 * http://www.jstor.org/view/08834237/di984058/98p0135e/0?currentResult=08834237%2bdi984058%2b98p0135e%2b0%2cFFFF1F&searchUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jstor.org%2Fsearch%2FBasicResults%3Fhp%3D25%26si%3D1%26gw%3Djtx%26jtxsi%3D1%26jcpsi%3D1%26artsi%3D1%26Query%3Dpublication%2Bbias%2Bin%2Bmeta-analysis%2Bgivens%26wc%3Don


 * Mickeyklein 18:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Philip Morris has grudgingly admitted a link after decades of pulling out all the stops to avoid having to do so. The "Tweedie project" and Layard/Levois, who produced the papers you cite above, were part of that effort. All of this is well-documented in the sources cited in the article and here on the talk page. The sources you cite were taken into account by various scientific and medical bodies when formulating their findings; playing up the primary sources now, in an effort to "debunk" the findings of reliable secondary sources, violates WP:OR. MastCell Talk 19:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It does not violate the original research doctrine because synthetic analysis is considered a secondary source. And as for the bias, in these sources, I guess you would imagine mathematics to be a slave of the tobacco industryMickeyklein 19:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Those are both primary sources; a secondary source would be, for example, a review article in a journal. As to bias, my position is simply that people engaged by the tobacco industry as "our scientists" to write studies for them and testify for them at regulatory hearings may be somewhat more likely to publish findings denying the harms of smoking. This position is supported by numerous reliable sources, including the WHO inquiry and the JAMA Barnes/Bero article. MastCell Talk 19:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "Secondary sources draw on primary sources to make generalizations or interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims". That seams pretty solid to me, lets ask the mediator. Mickeyklein 19:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No; in the academic literature, journal articles describing research or analyses carried out by the authors themselves are considered primary sources. Review articles, consensus statements from major scientific organizations, or textbook chapters, which synthesize the research of others into a cohesive summary, are secondary sources. Otherwise I could just say that every single journal article cited here is a secondary source and cite them as such - for example, the IARC study "drew on" its database to "make generalizations, analytic, or synthetic claims," but it's clearly a primary source nonetheless. MastCell Talk 19:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Mastcell is correct. Journal articles reporting origincal research a primary sources, reviews in journals and consensus statements are secondary sources.Yilloslime 20:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It is secondary because it is a mathematical analysis of previous primary studies on the clinical effects of ETS. This is evident because it was published in  Statistical Science , a mathematics journal.


 * The authors gathered no primary clinical data, but merely presented a secondary analysis of the clinical claims put together (in their case, they wanted to analyze the mathematical implications of including unpublished primary results in a larger secondary analysis).


 * This is in sharp contrast to the IARC study that gathered clinical data on the effects of ETS and reported directly on the results of the experiment. 69.181.208.181 22:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary: you are suggesting that any mathematical analysis of pre-existing data is a secondary source. Not so. The authors did gather data: they chose which studies they wanted to look at; and they performed their own calculations on them, creating original research, original findings, and thus a primary source. The CalEPA report, which took into account their findings as well as those of many other researchers, is a secondary source. MastCell Talk 22:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm going to ask the mediator about this, its a technical question and I want a technical response from someone not involved with dispute. I honestly don't trust either of you to give my evidence a fair hearing. 69.181.208.181 22:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I dunno if that's fair; we incorporated your "shocking" Nature article pretty heavily. But aside from the primary/secondary issue, how much weight do you think is appropriate for a single 10-year-old, or 12-year-old, tobacco-industry-funded study, when there is currently no scientific debate about the link between passive smoking and lung cancer? I might as well cite a journal article from 1984 and claim we don't know the cause of AIDS. MastCell Talk 23:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you see why I like to use quotes -- preferably in summation -- then just point to the source? I apply my method regularly, not only about the WHO study.  Of course, that doesn't "work" here on Wiki either.  Just a thought. Chido6d

Notes about the "controversy" surrounding the WHO/IARC study
As the discussion in the previous section seems to be drifting into a dialog of the deaf, I'd like to refocus the attention on the specific point which has been raised in the request for mediation, namely: Suppression of IARC/World Health Organization study conclusion to apparently preserve activist viewpoint(s). I am not 100%, but I presume the "suppression" is opting for the following text:

in preference of:

It seems therefore that some editors feel very strongly about including in the quotation from the 1998 IARC report the points that 1) the study found no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk, and 2) there was no detectable risk after cessation of exposure.

I find it strange that there is so much insistence about the inclusion of these two points, because they actually are non-issues. Indeed, if we look at the section Long-term effects, we find no mention of any link between exposure to ETS during childhood and lung cancer risk. As for the absence of detectable risk after cessation of exposure, this only strengthens the position of "activists" who favour government regulated smoking bans, as it indicates that, by stopping exposure, such bans are very effective ways of eliminating the risk.

Therefore, the two points which some editors insist of including in the quotation are completely non-controversial. However, their inclusion in a section which is labelled "World Health Organization Controversy" gives the false impression that they are contentious, and is thus misleading. Furthermore, the inclusion of these two points considerably lengthens the quotation and dilutes the real issue - the link between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS. This is why I am not in favor of including the full quotation, and I prefer the short version.

In passing, I note that it is rather ironical that the Request for mediation also complains about "Ad hominem exclusion of evidence" (probably another phrasing of the same complaint) while in the same breath accusing the other editors of wanting to "preserve activist viewpoint(s)": And why seest thou the straw, which is in thy brother’s eye, and perceivest not the beam which is in thine eye?

--Dessources 23:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In sorting this out, it would be enormously useful to have proper citation for the economist article mentioned in this section of the main article. I'm at a university with lexus nexus access and the link doesn't work. Plus, for those of us w/o access, a proper citation (volume, year, page number, issue date, title of article, and author name) would be great. There is no point in citing something if it is impossible to find the reference. Yilloslime 23:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Copies of the relevant articles and documents can be found in the published document archives of British American Tobacco. The following documents may help to understand what happened:


 * BAT internal email of 6 March 1998 Subject: IARC News release sent by Keith Gretton of BAT to his colleagues announcing that BAT had issued press releases on "the IARC study's publication on ETS" (with two attachments which I have not found).


 * BAT internal email of 8 March 1998 Subject: IARC Report: UK Sunday Telegraph Article and Editorial sent by Brian O'Connel of BAT to colleagues. The email contains a very short comment: "This is a significant event within the ETS debate, and we recommend that you secure coverage with your market", and is followed by a full copy of the Sunday Telegraph article and editorial. It is worth noting that while the Editorial, entitled " A Setback for Nanny", claims that the World Health Organization "has chosen so far not to publish the findings of the extensive research which it commissioned into the alleged association between passive smoking and lung cancer in non-smokers", the article says that "the full report had been submitted to a science journal."

A copy of the article which appeared in The Economist could be found in the Note from Catherine Birne, WILLS to Laura Knight, BAT Hong Kong, regarding clip of coverage. The quality is mediocre, but the article is still readable if you enlarge it.

--Dessources 01:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I found a better quality copy of the Economist article (kept in the Philip Morris document collection). See. It's now referenced in the body of the article. --Dessources 01:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Awesome, thanks for fixing the Economist ref.


 * This is a very lawyer-esque argument for not even stating what the study concluded. The Telegraph covered all three major conclusions, and had some commentary to add to it as well (see earlier posts or the article itself).  We can quote from the study or the media reports; it doesn't matter to me, but leaving this information out is really just what I said it was. By the way, the section heading does not necessarily have to contain the word "controversy". Chido6d 00:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm also wondering how two dfferent statements could be made "in the same breath" when they were made by two different people. Any theories? Chido6d 22:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Quote borders
I see one issue which has come up is the use of Template:Quotation to produce bordered boxes for lengthy quotes. This may be a relatively minor issue we can work out. First let me explain why I generally use that template: I think it breaks up the text, makes it more readable, and yes, it does draw attention to the quotes, which ideally are chosen because they're particularly relevant to the current understanding of the topic. However, I appreciate Chido's concerns about overemphasizing the quotes. Although I prefer the template for stylistic reasons, I'd be willing to switch over to "" tags, which indent the quotation in a tight paragraph but do not produce any bordering or other effects, if there is serious concern that we're overemphasizing the quotes. On a minor issue, I don't have a problem with the "According to an article in the Lancet..." lead-in which Chido had proposed. Thoughts? MastCell Talk 15:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem concerning quotation boxes, although I like them because they improve readability and make the text less boring. But these are pure presentation aspects, and I go along with the blockquote solution, if this could help make everybody happy. I have a slight concern regarding the "According to an article in the Lancet..." which could be interpreted as meaning that the Lancet was the only source in which this information appeared, while the full report on the WHO inquiry is an equally important, if not more important, and much more complete, source, which is separate from the Lancet article (different authors).
 * --Dessources 15:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * True about the multiple sources (not just the Lancet) supporting that statement; let's think about it further. As to the quotes, I may go ahead and change them over to blockquotes as Chido had done; if there are any objections, just revert it and mention them here. MastCell Talk 16:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The quotes look great. Maybe we can take that issue off the mediation slate? And I agree that "according to an article in the Lancet" is problematic in that it makes it sound like only one source is making the criticism, when this is not the case. I think that paragraph is fine as is. I think it should only be changed in such a way reflects how many groups support the statement: "According to the WHO and articles appearing the Lancet and AJPH..." But I prefer the more concise version we have now. Yilloslime 16:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Inherent problem: the 2nd source is the WHO's own allegation that the whole thing was fixed by tobacco companies. If you don't want to name the Lancet, then name both sources or use something like "It was alleged in certain reports..."  This is a huge problem with the article itself.  "It was discovered" strongly implies -- if not stating outright -- that such a statement is factual without even naming the sources. Chido6d 00:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In the spirit of compromise and goodwill, I have removed the bordering issue from the mediation case. Chido6d 02:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Note on the WHO inquiry report
The WHO inquiry report was conducted by an international team of senior experts, under the leadership of prof. Thomas Zeltner, the Swiss equivalent of the US Surgeon General, with David Kessler, the former US FDA Commissioner and dean at the University of California, San Francisco Medical School, Anke Martiny, Executive Director of Transparency International, Germany and Dr Fazel Randera, Inspector General of Intelligence, South Africa. The inquiry report was released publicly immediately after it had been submitted to the Director-General of WHO. The tobacco industry did not challenge the findings revealed in the report, although they were overpowering for them. The findings are all backed with solid factual evidence, much of it available in writing from previously secret tobacco industry documents, leaving no doubt about the nature of the actions of the tobacco industry that the report describes (Chapter IX of the report lists 172 references).

Going back to the current Passive Smoking article, we note that the section entitled World Health Organization Controversy includes a paragraph starting with the following statement: "It was later discovered that the controversy over the WHO's alleged suppression of data had been entirely engineered by Philip Morris, British American Tobacco, and other tobacco companies, in an effort to discredit findings which would harm their business interests." This statement is accurate and fully backed by the two references provided as sources (the Lancet article and the WHO inquiry report). Replacing it with "It was alleged in some reports that..." waters down the point in an unacceptable way; this may even be perceived as an attempt to whitewash the action of the tobacco industry. We should keep in mind that the tobacco industry has been found guilty of racketeering by the US justice of this precise kind.

Indeed, the Final Opinion of Judge Gladys Kessler, in the case USA vs Philip Morris et al., dedicates a long section to the WHO/IARC study, showing how the tobacco industry tried to undermine and neutralize its results. Here is a brief extract from this section:

It is interesting that some of the currently most vocal editors of the Passive Smoking article still persist (just as British American Tobacco does) in demanding that this arbitrary and unsupported GEP rule be applied to the studies on ETS, insisting forcefully that studies exhibiting risk ratios below 2 be considered as non significant.

--Dessources 20:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Bloat
Not long before Chido6d and MickeyKlein began editing this article, we did a big trim of the sections on Osteen and Enstrom/Kabat, to get rid of a bunch of minutiae on both sides. I'd be happy to trim further, particularly in relation to Osteen, which might help to get this issue off the table. I suggest deleting the lists of grounds for both decisions, and just recording the fact of the decisions on each side. Similarly with E&K we could lose the Smith quote and maybe more. But the big problem here is the attempt to record lots of very minor points on the anti-mainstream side by comparison with a quite succinct summary of the mainstream view. Some degree of bloat and listiness is inevitable. JQ 07:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. But perhaps we should wait for the current mediation to take effect, because if we modifiy substantially those sections at this stage, others may see it as encouragement to do the same, and this may blur the issue at stake, so that in the end, we will no longer know what the mediation is about. --Dessources 10:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed as well. I have tried to condense both sides of the Osteen decision in the interest of readability. As there is mediation pending, if it's unacceptable then my edits can be reverted and we can discuss it further at mediation, but hopefully they're relatively non-controversial. I also strongly agree about the bigger issue (proliferation of minor points on the minority side while the majority position is summed up succintly), but that (and Enstrom/Kabat) are likely to be much more contentious and so I'm not going to edit those pending the start of mediation. MastCell Talk 17:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I had to revert it because it omits quite a bit of relevant information. I will work on trimming it down and helping it to flow better.
 * The arguments for brevity ring hollow; one only needs to observe the redundancy of the article and the volume of counterarguments and opinion against the minority view in particular.
 * For example, during a mini-analysis of the Criticism of the Scientific Majority View section, I found:
 * Seven (7) statements emphasizing that this is a minority view which is contrary to scientific consensus
 * Ten (10) references to the tobacco industry
 * Seven (7) direct counterarguments and opposing viewpoints
 * So if you want to shorten the article, you may want to summarize your conspiracy theories in some kind of disclaimer paragraph under the section header. This would make the section much smaller.
 * Some editors want free reign of most of the article, then to debunk and demonize any opposing view ad nauseam. This is one of the issues in mediation. Chido6d 22:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I'll liked MastCell's trimming, and I'm sorry to see that it was reverted by Chido, but as we're in mediation right now, I won't fight it. I do think that all of us, but especially Chido and Mickey, need to keep in mind that this is supposed to be encyclopedia entry on ETS, not a treatise, or monograph, or a definitive history. As such, we cannot and should not go into tons and tons of detail on all these minor topics. An article on the Osteen decision would be a great place to give a point-by-point description of the rulings, as would a book on ETS or a thesis on ETS regulation. It's a little much for an encyclopedia entry on the topic of ETS, though. Again the question we always need to keep in mind is: "How relevant is this to the overall picture of ETS?" While these details are interesting, they don't rise to level of importance that would warrant having so many words devoted to them. I think we should trim the Osteen decision section as MastCell had, and also trim the Erstrom & Kabat section and the 'Tobacco industry response' section, and I'd argue for simply summarizing the various positions of the tobacco companies and providing direct links to the relevant parts of their websites, rather than taking up all this space with these big quotes.Yilloslime 23:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you are right, but there are many other places where the article could be abridged as well. I'm more interested in fairness and accuracy (vs. advocacy) than in the overall length of the article, though.  This is a hot topic around the world these days.  Governments are passing laws on this basis.  It's important. Chido6d 23:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If your concern is "fairness and accuracy (vs. advocacy)", might I suggest you refrain from loaded phrases like "your conspiracy theories", particularly when such "theories" are not mine, but are heavily cited, relevant, verifiable, reliably sourced, scrupulously accurate content? As to abridging the article, minority views are currently represented well in excess of their acceptance among experts in the field, thus violating WP:WEIGHT. MastCell Talk 23:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Your as in those you espouse. Apologies for any offense taken.
 * The mediator will take a look at the weight issue and bloating, I trust. What some don't seem to understand (if I am wrong forgive me) is that this article, and Wikipedia in general, is not supposed to advocate any side of an issue -- even if one side is "right" and may have the backing of a scientific majority.  Wikipedia exists to lay out information fairly, objectively and with due weight.  Deliberate attempts to discredit an opposing viewpoint at length, when the balance of the article is clear, is a disservice.  I am opposed to the word "consensus" (except as quoted by the surgeoon general) because it suggests unanimity and is very misleading.  If necessary, I may add this to the mediation case.
 * A very disturbing thing is that when we (more or less) settle on wording that is generally compliant with the standards for this site, other objections emerge (it's just too long). Other sections can engage in lenghty discourse, repetition and the musings of Stanton A. Glantz (one objective individual).  But here some are, trying to whittle a line or two away here and there.  Whereabouts, and for what reason? Chido6d 01:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * But a scientific consensus does exist, at least with regard to lung cancer and to the existence of a risk for heart disease (though as the Nature article points out, there is some dispute about the size of heart disease risk). Numerous sources attest to this. Consensus is an appropriate word, therefore. It would be misleading to pretend such a consensus doesn't exist, or that there is active scientific debate where there is not. Arguments that have long since been discredited or are no longer actively espoused by anyone except the Cato Institute shouldn't be presented as if they represent current scientific or epidemiologic opinion. Now, if your point is that some smoking bans or legislation go beyond what the science supports, that's a separate issue and one where a case could be made with reasonably good sources. But the thrust of the dispute, so far, seems to be a desire to present outdated, debunked, or clearly biased information without making its status clear. MastCell Talk 03:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Stepping away from this, we could avoid some bloat if we merged the Enstrom-Kabat and Gori sections, had one sentence noting that both Gori and Enstrom-Kabat had been criticised for their tobacco funding, and then a section on the general point (which our own discussions here have only reinforced) that the great majority of work criticising the mainstream consensus is tobacco-funded. This would save repeating the point as many times as we do at present, which might help to allay the concerns of Chido6d.


 * I favor some consolidation. One idea would be to merge most the tobacco company information into either "Role of (the) Tobacco Industry" (sans the word "funding"), and describe the funding issue, the "sound science" project, etc.  Or, most/all of this information could be rolled into the "Tobacco Industry Response" section.  I'm not opposed to specific references.  For example, I think it is fair to leave in that Enstrom/Kabat finished the study with tobacco money -- I need to add that initially they weren't funded this way (which is the current implication) -- and how the WHO defended the allegations of the media.
 * I further agree wholeheartedly that there is a consensus in the sense that there is widespread general agreement. My problem is that the word is synonymous with unanimity, and used as such would make a claim that simply is not true. Chido6d 19:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "Scientific consensus" is not synonymous with unanimity, as you've mentioned. The term is wikilinked; beyond that, we need to give the reader enough credit to presume that they understand what the words mean. MastCell Talk 20:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Classic example of bias and activism
I had to document this edit beyond the history page. The Tobacco Industry Response section contained the following statement: "'In a confidential 1978 report, the tobacco industry described evidence of the harms of passive smoking as 'the most dangerous development to the viability of the tobacco industry that has yet occurred.''" What the source actually said is this: "'Nearly six out of ten believe that smoking is dangerous to the non-smokers health, up sharply over the last four years...This we see as the most dangerous development to the viability of the tobacco industry that has yet occurred.' (emphasis mine)" My edit changed "evidence of the harms of passive smoking" to "public attitudes about passive smoking".

The activism is rampant, and I don't have time (unfortunately) to address every case.

Another prominent figure who works on this page, while updating the "official" statement of BAT on passive smoking, omitted the portion stating that the company believes in the accomodation of both smokers and non-smokers in public places -- leaving the impression that they are in agreement with the WHO and support a total smoking ban. I find all of this very interesting, especially when charges of activism and promotion of agendas are met with such strong resistance. Chido6d 19:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The contribution to the Tobacco Industry Response section was added by MastCell on 25 July, 2007. The name of the source is A Study of Public Attitudes Toward Cigarette Smoking and the Tobacco Industry in 1978." (emphasis mine). Chido6d 19:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think those edits are fine, though you could do without the constant accusations. Dessources' edit to BAT's position was actually to add quite a bit of their position on how RR's <2 are not significant - which is significantly at odds with the WHO - and did not seem to make any implication about smoking bans or otherwise. But again, I think both edits are fine. MastCell Talk 21:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * And your amendment is fine as well (increasing concerns). What increasingly concerns me (no pun intended) is why these biases are written into the article to begin with.  If it isn't deliberately misleading, then what is it? Chido6d 21:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In what sense is it worse to say that the tobacco industry saw evidence of the risks as a threat than to say that they saw public acceptance of that evidence as a threat? If anything, it's the reverse. By all means, clarify minor points like this, but please stop with the consistent accusations of bad faith. JQ 06:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean by the question, or what you mean by "worse". If you think it's OK to add your own spin to what a source really says in order to push your agenda, then maybe you should take a break from editing.  Misuse of the source is a violation of WP:NPOV. Chido6d 23:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the systematic denigration of other editors by calling them names, such as "activists", and the constant accusations that their contributions are biased and motivated by a hidden agenda, is of little help. They actually break some of the most important rules of Wikipedia, which might be worthwhile repeating here, although they are permanently listed at the top of this page:
 * Be polite - Personally targeted behaviour causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress. Wikipedia's code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another.
 * Assume good faith - To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. In allowing anyone to edit, we work from an assumption that most people are trying to help the project, not hurt it.
 * No personal attacks - Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia.

This being said, I'd like to comment on the two substantial points which are raised in this section. Let me start with the second one, since it is the easiest.

I recently modified the section Position of the major tobacco companies to update the official statement of BAT on passive smoking, since it had recently been changed on their website. However, Chido6d criticizes me for having omitted the portion stating that the company believes in the accomodation of both smokers and non-smokers in public places, "leaving the impression that they are in agreement with the WHO and support a total smoking ban." I am the editor who initially added this section to the article and I feel committed to keeping it up to date and improving it. I did not include the portion proposed by Chido6d for two reasons: 1) it would make the part associated with BAT unduly long (it's already the longest) and out of balance with the parts associated with the other tobacco companies; 2) I updated the old paragraph, replacing it with its new counterpart on the BAT website. The old paragraph started with "Our view of the science is that...", which was replaced with a whole section entitled "Our view of the science". The update was neutral with respect to the previous content. I did not see that this could "leave the impression that they are in agreement with the WHO and support a total smoking ban", as Chido6d observed. However, upon re-reading this portion carefully, I think Chido6d's point is valid, and the additional portion should be kept, even at the cost of making the part associated with BAT a bit long.

The second point concerns the sentence "In a confidential 1978 report, the tobacco industry described increasing public concerns about passive smoking as 'the most dangerous development to the viability of the tobacco industry that has yet occurred.'" Although this sentence is the result of some debate and compromise, I do not find it entirely satisfactory and think there is still room for improvement.

In 1978, and even before, mounting evidence started to indicate that passive smoking was indeed harmful to the health of the non-smoker, and the tobacco industry could not remain indifferent to this phenomenon, which had the potential of being highly damaging to their business. The tobacco industry was all the more worried that it knew already, and acknowldeged it in its internal documents, that non-smokers in an environment in which people smoke are exposed to a health risk, as this extract from an industry document from 1977 shows:

Source: INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE ON SMOKING ISSUES WORKING PARTY ON MEDICAL RESEARCH - FIRST REPORT, 2 August 1977 Legacy Library document ogq08e00

It should be noted that this document was prepared by the leading scientific officers of the major tobacco companies of the time.

This is clear and worth repeating: "There was no prospect of being able to show that non-smokers were exposed to no risks to health whatsoever from an environment in which tobacco products were smoked". Given that degree of awareness of the problem, it is not surprising that the tobacco industry devised policies and strategies to counter this danger.

Source: POSITION PAPER dated 28 April 1977 Legacy Library document grz19e00

In fact, already in the early 1970s, the tobacco industry was aware of the problem and very active in countering it. This is documented in quite some detail in the judgment of the case USA vs. Philip Morris et al.(pp. 1259-1264) We could borrow the title dedicated to this question in Judge Gladys Kessler's Final Opinion, page 1259: Internally, Defendants Expressed Concern that the Mounting Evidence on ETS Posed a Grave Threat to Their Industry. I think "mounting evidence" is the right term, and it comes from a judge, who by profession, must be neutral.

--Dessources 00:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. Chido reverted your edit, saying "See talk", but has not addressed your points. I'm going to reinsert this with a separate reference to Kessler's opinion. Here's something else interesting from Kessler's opinion, regarding the issue of discarding individual studies instead of viewing the evidence as a whole, and the true level of "dissent":




 * But I suppose citing a legal judgement is "activism", as is citing the Lancet, American Journal of Public Health, Surgeon General, EPA, WHO, IARC, Washington Post, or anyone except... the Cato Institute? MastCell Talk 03:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * My gosh...give me time to write this, will ya?
 * The reason I reverted the edit is because the tobacco industry didn't refer to "mounting evidence". Judge Kessler did.  You would have to attribute the statement to her; you cannot leave in place the other implication.
 * Activism is when you twist the words of your sources, make misleading contributions, become redundant for the sake of mere emphasis, make ad hominem attacks, and erase information from reliable sources simply because you don't like what it says. Chido6d 03:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I want to add that "activism" is not intended as a personal attack. I do think that some people's strong feelings about this issue is having a severe impact on objectivity. Chido6d 03:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm removing your "or no" reference again because the source refers specifically to Dr. Bradley's methodology (which I admit is far outside the mainstream). It does not justify a blanket dismissal of all dissenting views.  If you want to qualify it with more information, feel free.  As it stands it is (once again) misleading.  If necessary, we can add it to the mediation case.  Chido6d 03:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I did wait a little more than half an hour after you wrote "see talk" for your justification... I'm sorry if you think I jumped the gun, but as this is the only article you edit, I thought that was sufficient time. In any case, in my edit I did attribute the finding to the Court, so we should be in agreement. I agree with your description of activist editing, though perhaps not with your application of it. Ad hominem would be calling Richard Carmona a "fanatic" without a supporting source; activism would be labeling the concerns over passive smoking "tyranny in the name of 'public health'", again without a supporting source. I'm not very keen on the constant attempts to portray those you disagree with as anti-smoking zealots with an axe to grind, when we've added innumerable sources to the article and based our contentions on a proportional representation of published reliable sources. That seems a bit ad hominem to me. MastCell Talk 03:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As to Bradley, please read the Court's finding. He was the only witness called by Philip Morris; they had the opportunity to call any number of expert witnesses to demonstrate active scientific debate (and no doubt they would compensate such witnesses handsomely), but could produce only Bradley. That kind of underlines the lack of significant scientific dissent on passive smoking. Again, this is not my interpretation, but the Court's. The Court also repeatedly took pains to underline the strength of scientific consensus on passive smoking. Therefore, I'm going to reinsert little or no, as this is an accurate interpretation of the source. MastCell Talk 03:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * MastCell, I did read the court's finding and the source basically said that there were no other credible epidemiologists that share Dr. Bradley's view. If you want to say that in the article, it is your right.  I wouldn't fight that.  But please just be accurate.  The article is otherwise very clear about the scientific consensus, don't you think?  By the way, I had already edited it before reading your most recent remark (sorry).  It was not my intent to avoid dialogue.
 * I do admit that I was a little fiery when I first came in, and I want to apologize for that. I do, though, see way too much activism in the editing process.
 * Dr. Carmona called for the complete abolition of tobacco in 2003 during congressional testimony, therefore I take his 2006 report (and everything else he says) with less than a grain of salt. My apologies once again for being less than specific.
 * I was not at all referring to concern about passive smoking as "tyranny in the name of public health". This talk page is not a forum for my personal views, so I will have to digress.
 * I further have no argument against the accurate use of many sources in proper context and with due weight. We just need to be sure that we aren't adding our original research or our own opinions to that. Chido6d 04:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't bring up your earlier post to attack you, and I wasn't trying to put you on the defensive. My point was simply this: there are a lot of charges of activism, inserting "misleading" information, etc being leveled. All of us have some personal belief about the quality of evidence linking passive smoking to various harms. What seems like an obviously accurate interpretation to me may seem incorrect to you, and vice versa, as our underlying personal views apparently differ. These things happen without any intent to mislead or engage in partisanship, and it's more constructive to avoid those sort of accusations and assume that we're just coming at the same information from different starting points. I could stand to do this more as well. That was my point in linking the earlier diff; I do appreciate that you've modified your approach, and I don't think that initial comment is representative of your current input. I suppose I was just trying to illustrate the above point. MastCell Talk 17:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand, and there was no offense taken. I think it's important, though, with a hot topic such as this one to stay as close to the source as possible at all times.  The problem ensues when we introduce interpretations, exactly as you said.  Although some may have honest intentions, others may not.  For these reasons, I believe it's much better to quote the source whenever possible than to paraphrase it. Chido6d 01:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As you've no doubt noticed, I like to include illustrative quotes from the sources. However, with the sheer volume of sources we have here, there has to be some level of collation and summarization and, yes, paraphrasing. After all, the sources are all cited. Any reader with any degree of curiosity is able to see for themselves exactly what words the source used. That's the beauty part. MastCell Talk 04:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Epidemiologists are not a 'scientific' source in this instance. They are people without the necessary statistical qualifications making claims about their statistical analyses that have not been validated by statistical experts. This makes their judgements on statistical findings non-expert and lacking validity. I don't know how much you know about epidemiology or statistics but your reasoning is flawed.


 * This is an issue most people don't understand. Mixino1 23:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Bloating Detail
Does anyone other than Yilloslime think that the words "Judge Gladys Kessler" (accurate and in context) are "bloating detail"? Chido6d 01:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's strictly necessary (as it's noted in the footnote text and in the reference, of course) but of all the bloat in the article I don't think it's a major offender. I don't feel strongly either way. If you feel strongly that it should be there, then I suppose that's fine with me. MastCell Talk 04:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it adds detail, but I disagree with deleting it on the grounds of "bloating". I think it's of fair importance to identify the Justice in such a high profile case. Chido6d 11:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I just don't see the point of having it in there, especially when anyone interested in more detail can click on the reference. Yes, there is a lot of bloat in addition to these few words, and I am indeed tempted to go through and cut out massive swathes of this article. However, since we're in mediation, my view has been to err on the side of the status quo: leave in bloating details that have been in the article for awhile, but resist the addition of additional bloat. I simply don't see why the name of the judge is important enough to mention in body of this already-too-long article, especially if when 1) it's already clear from the text that this was a not a jury trial, and 2) the judge's name is there in the citation for anyone who cares. That's the main thing: hardly anyone reading this article is going to care what judge it was or even recognize her name--so why have it in the article? Those few people who are intersted, and for whom this additional information would mean something, those folks can click the footnote and find out who the judge was in a matter of seconds. Yilloslime 17:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What would you like to cut out, and what is your motivation? Are you not even more concerned since a whole new section was just added?  Or are you OK with that because you like what the new section says? Chido6d 23:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * My motivation is several-fold: Aligning the amount of space given to various viewpoints with their relative acceptance per WP:WEIGHT, making the article more concise and readable, etc... As I previously indicated, "I think we should trim the Osteen decision section as MastCell had, and also trim the Erstrom & Kabat section and the 'Tobacco industry response' section, and I'd argue for simply summarizing the various positions of the tobacco companies and providing direct links to the relevant parts of their websites, rather than taking up all this space with these big quotes." I also wouldn't mind seeing the Critique of Confidence Intervals' section trimmed way down, or even removed entirely, and I'm not sure we need the 'Presentation of dissent in legal cases' section either. Perhaps the 'Position of major tobacco companies' could even be turned into it's own article--this is a very neutral section and I don't think it adds much to the article, so I don't think that making it it's own section would run into POV-fork concerns. I do think that the 'Current state of controversy' section is good and should stay, and I'd even argue that the article would benefit from the addition of a description of legal history associatated with passive smoking.Yilloslime 23:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

To get back to the particular bit of bloat in question, I'm not catagorically opposed to including it, I just haven't seen any justification for including it. If you got a good reason for it to stay, then let's hear it. That would be a more constructive way of dealing with this issue than adding an additional topic to be mediated to the RfM.Yilloslime 00:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If you're not "categorically opposed to including it", then leave it in. For example, I'm not thrilled with the new section.  I think it's bloating, overkill, reaching and really just being used to make a point.  But it's accurate (pending further review), and I wouldn't edit it without just cause.  Try applying the same standards. Chido6d 04:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And it sounds as if from all the trimming you'd do, all we'd have left is a treatise from the former U.S. Surgeon General. Chido6d 04:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "If you're not "categorically opposed to including it", then leave it in," writes Chido. Au contraire—the burden of proof for demonstrating why new material should be added to an article lies with the editor who wants to include the material. You have not yet attempted to justify why this tidbit deserves to be added to this article. Maybe there's very good reason that we would all agree with, but so far, no one has put one forth.Yilloslime 20:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to let the moderator decide if you are just being a gadfly. Chido6d 04:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Chido6d, You seem to be misinterpreting what moderation will do, and acting in ways that make it unlikely moderation will succeed. The moderator won't decide anything. Unless you are willing to work with other editors in improving the article, moderation is a waste of time. It might be better for all concerned if we go straight to arbitration, where you will get a decision, though not one you will like.JQ 04:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you're right. When one nitpicks at letters and lines, and leaves volumes intact...it might be time for arbitration. Chido6d 04:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully not bloat...
The most recent issue of Environmental Health Perspectives, has this article about the proliferation of smoking bans, which says in part:

I'm think it would be nice to incorporate this info. There are few references to the health benefits of smoking bans to non-smokers already peppered throughout the article (e.g. the last paragraph of §8, parts of §6.7, and sort of §4) which could perhaps be consolidated with this new info into a nice section about the effect of smoking bans on public health. Yilloslime 19:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Activist! No, I suppose we should improve the section on smoking bans, though smoking ban does have its own article, so perhaps this material would be appropriately expanded upon there. There are a couple of primary sources (Helena study, etc), and at least 2 good secondary sources: the piece you mention, and the Nature article initially brought up by Mickeyklein, in which some epidemiologists questioned the benefits of smoking bans. MastCell Talk 20:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the smoking ban article is a mess - the "critique" section is overlong, full of original research/essayism, almost totally unsourced (except for "The Website of Joe Jackson"), and the reliable sources that are used are being cited improperly to advance conclusions they don't espouse. MastCell Talk 20:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * How much did you charge to let them take a picture of the sign in your front yard? No, seriously...the world map is not accurate; the entire US is colored in blue, and the list contains the names of states that have no such ban. By the way, I have been researching Gladys Kessler (knew nothing about her before now), and I understand now why you don't want the ultra-liberal Clintonite judge named in the article. More on her later. Chido6d 03:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Right... because the belief that passive smoking is harmful is correlated with being an "ultra-liberal Clintonite". Like that left-wing pinko Richard Carmona, appointed by the notoriously bleeding-heart-liberal keep-that-tobacco-money-away-from-me President George W. Bush... yes, there's an argument with legs. By the way, would it be at all possible to stop claiming that every content dispute is motivated by a nefarious desire to suppress important information, and at least acknowledge the possibility that we just have some honest differences about how the article should look? MastCell Talk 05:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Chido, all I've asked is that you justify why we should include the name of the judge, because to me it seems like pointless bloat to have it in there (and it's in the footnote, etc), but I admit that there may be a very good reason that I'm not seeing. So far you have failed. Instead you've accused me and others of all kinds of stuff, added points to the list of issues to be mediated, etc. Why don't you simply try working with the other editors of this article rather than questioning our motives? Yilloslime 18:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, I never said that belief that passive smoking is harmful makes anyone an ultra-liberal, a Clintonite, or any such thing. It's ironic that accusations of personal attacks are levied by one who is putting words in someone else's mouth.  There is certainly no harm in including Judge Kessler's name with the decision. It was her decision, she delivered the verdict and wrote the opinion.  Furthermore, this would distinguish the case from certain Appellate Courts or the Supreme Court (both having a panel of judges), as well as distinguish this case from one utilizing a jury.  This may be helpful to members of the international community.  As it stands, the name of Judge Osteen should equally be deleted and replaced with the US District Court (middle NC) -- and the name of the section changed to "EPA Report (1992)".  We could do this.
 * Secondly, I have discovered that a Lancet editorial called for the complete abolition of tobacco in 2004. I haven't been able to read the article completely (it costs $$), but I would be happy to link an article wherein it is referenced, if desired.  The former SG's (Dick Carmona's)  testimony to the US Congress in 2003 -- where he called for all sale and use of tobacco to be banned -- speaks volumes about his objectivity.  Folks, these positions are extreme.  Honestly, how in the world should we expect those who hold these positions to be scientifically objective about the effects of passive smoking?
 * The former SG left quietly in July, 2006 after issuing his landmark report. I suspect he was fired.
 * I read the WP:NPA policy, and charges of bias and being misleading (which are leveled at me as well -- with no complaints) do not rise to the level of personal attacks. Please take such remarks in context, as do I.  After all, I am the one who has had Holy Scripture hurled at me, accusing me of damnable hypocrisy.
 * Lastly, I have outlined a good faith compromise on the mediation case's pre-mediation discussion page. Please have a look and give feedback.  Don't worry about hurting my feelings. Chido6d 00:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm... you have quite a few conspiracy theories about extremism. What I don't see are actual reliable sources alleging that Carmona, Lancet, BMJ, the WHO, the IARC, etc have a bias about tobacco which has led them to twist the science. On the other hand, I can produce a dozen reliable sources right now (in addition to those already cited in the article) documenting how the tobacco industry has done so (look at as an appetizer). The difference is verifiability. Unsourced or poorly sourced accusations of bias don't go very far here. In fact, they sound a little like advocacy.
 * Incidentally, I see you're building an unsourced, original synthesis case that Lancet is an anti-tobacco extremist organization, so you might be surprised at this reliable secondary source indicating that that the tobacco industry had an "inside man" on the editorial staff there. Your suspicions about the reasons for Carmona's departure are interesting, but I'd hardly call it "quiet" - he blasted the Bush Administration on the way out the door for politicizing everything. Carmona wasn't allowed to speak at the Special Olympics or talk to a reporter without clearing it with the White House, so casting his passive smoking report as the work of a loose cannon seems far-fetched.
 * I don't really care whether Kessler is named or not. Nor do I consider your constant assumptions of malice to be personal attacks; I just think they're keeping us from making any progress toward consensus. MastCell Talk 03:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * When a person or entity has publically stated a goal or desire to completely eradicate tobacco use, I don't need anyone else to tell me that there is bias. And that's not advocacy; it's common sense.  Should I plan to make such an accusation in the article, which I don't, simple biographical information would suffice -- else reliable sources would be provided.
 * For similar reasons, with all due respect, it is a waste of your time to provide any source for my persual that contains the word Glantz. After all, he is the author of the 1986 booklet Legislative Approaches to a Smoke-Free Society, and I don't need to know much more than that (though there is much, much more).
 * Because there have been thinly veiled accusations of inconsistency, I wish to point out that I have never defended the tobacco industry. Without question, some of their actions have been reprehensible.
 * Perhaps you know something I don't, but I didn't hear Dick Carmona attack the White House until recently. Things seemed very quiet for a while after his abrupt departure.
 * I am working on the compromise project. I would appreciate any critique on the outline itself, should anything seem gravely amiss. Chido6d 03:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If your accusations of bias are not something you plan to add to the article, then the talk page is probably not the forum to discuss them further. As to Glantz, the question (for Wikipedia purposes) is not so much whether his work meets with your approval, but whether items he has published in widely respected, peer-reviewed journals are reliable sources for a Wikipedia article, which they are. MastCell Talk 05:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

POV tag
I would be in favour of removing the POV tag at the top of the article (I have done it but reverted my change, as I should like first to get the feeling of the other editors). I consider this tag as unduly penalizing the article which, in spite of its imperfections, is still very largeley consensual for its main substance. The POV tag, which has been inserted by Chido6d with no well argued reason - except pronouncing this page highly biased and the produce of "activists" of the worst kind - is throwing doubt on the entire contents of the article. Keeping the tag in place is actually rewarding the policiy of systematic attacks staged by Chido6d. I had expected the Mediation process would bring more civility into the debate, but given Chido6d's latest posts, I am about to give up that expectation. I am now concerned that this process may simply be used as a means of gaining time, entertaining an artificial controversy, keeping editors busy on side issues, and maintaining the POV tag at the top of the page for as long as possible. --Dessources 09:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I favor removal of the tag for the same reasons. Furthermore, given the slowness of mediation, Chido's demonstrated lack of interest in working with other editors and overexpectations about mediation, and Mickey's lack of participation in recent days on this page--given all this--I'm strongly considering pulling out of mediation...Yilloslime 19:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess what I'd like to see is some indication of what Chido thinks the "Controversy" section should look like. The tag is OK if there's a dispute which is actively being addressed in good faith. We're stretching that a little recently. It looks like the mediation may be on hold for a little while. So maybe we could at least get a sense of what Chido wants the article to look like? The more specific, the better. It'd also help if Chido could leave the attacks on other editors' motives behind, since in this case that's at best a glass-houses thing and, in any case, unlikely to be constructive. MastCell Talk 19:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The reasons for the POV tag are on the case page, and I don't know what more I can do except for provide specific examples -- which I've done on this page several times. Ironically, I've been out all day and did plan to outline a compromise (on the pre-mediation talk page) before the end of the evening that I hope will be acceptable to all.  If we can work something out, then we can take off the tag and close the case.  The one who left me a message -- please check yours (thanks). I, too, am observing that the mediation is going very slowly. Chido6d 22:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

As Chido6d has so far failed, after more than one week, to produce his "good faith" version of the section he finds contentious, I think there is no point of keeping the POV tag any longer. I therefore remove it. --Dessources 17:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * For several days, the good faith compromise draft has been exactly where I said it was -- stated above -- hence, the POV tag is resubmitted. I strongly suggest that in the future you pay closer attention before making rash accusations (if this is possible with you).Chido6d 23:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Apologies for the rash accusation. For the other editors, who, like me, may find it difficult to locate the compromise draft page, here is the link:
 * Talk:Passive smoking/Controversy draft
 * --Dessources 09:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * And my apologies for "shouting". It just became a bit frustrating because you had already been to the page that I announced I would put it.  Furthermore, you did not ask its location.  Rather, you said that I had failed to produce it.  Hmm. Chido6d 03:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This is my first comment about Wikipedia. My background is in mathematics; particularly probability and statistics; and I am a smoker. Because of the UK smoking ban I have recently spent a lot of time reading the literature on passive smoking. I don't want to add to the verbiage above. I just hope the neutrality warning stays in place until the end of time. I'm sad that, partly because of the general belief that Wikipedia is a serious source of information, my nieces are growing up thinking that occasionally being in a room with smokers is harming them. Filling young people's heads with nonsense is child-abuse. Finally, I suggest that those of you who edit the page reveal your names, whether or not you are members of anti-smoking activist groups, in the pay of drug (or tobacco) companies and your medical and/or statistical qualifications.130.88.16.205 11:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia aims to summarize and present research performed by others, as does any encyclopedia. Thus, the academic qualifications of its editors are generally moot; we are not presenting our conclusions, but those of reliable sources whose names, qualifications, and conflicts of interest are a matter of public record. If you disagree with the conclusions drawn by public health authorities, or the policies enacted by them, certainly there are avenues open in a democratic society to act on your concerns. But so long as every major medical and public health organization concurs that passive smoking is harmful, Wikipedia will accurately reflect that fact, and doing so is hardly "child abuse". Neturality tags are designed to indicate that there is ongoing discussion over how to objectively present a topic, not to tag any controversial issue on which more than one opinion has been expressed. MastCell Talk 17:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * (new comment moved to bottom of thread; was initially in response to 130.88.16.205) I agree with your sentiments. I am a statistician with a PhD in statistics. Epidemiologists tend to be under-skilled and for sale to the highest bidder. The whole passive smoking charade disgusts me. The way vague correlations are passed off as causal relationships is logically unsound and utterly misleading. Their work is completely the other end of the spectrum to the way real statistical professionals work.


 * When I do my work, I am modelling or analysing to inform organisations on how to maximise their performance and/or profit - simply trying to tell them the truth. As such, I throw away very weak results or advise that they are very weak results. This is because it would be utter folly for me to advise people that specific issues are important when they are not. They would, rightly, not employ me again if I did that.


 * With epidemiology, the basic statistical and scientific principles are turned on their heads. Weak results are shouted from the roof tops. Governments are urged to take immediate action. All the time money is changing hands to ensure the right result, no matter how weak, is found. If the results are weak, they simply claim that they are incredible. Research eliciting a non-positive result is swept under the carpet.


 * These people wouldn't last 10 minutes in the real data analysis world. They are liars and conmen without the necessary qualifications to even claim what they are saying. The POV tag must stay. Mixino1 23:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Other than your somewhat vitriolic personal views toward epidemiologists, is there anything specific, or sourced, or concrete, that you would like to propose to improve the article? For example, sources have been produced showing that money did indeed change hands, in large quantities, for the purpose of downplaying the links between passive smoking and health risks. Are there similarly reliable and notable sources which back your contention that the risks have been exaggerated for financial gain? MastCell Talk 23:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Other sources

 * JAMA 1995: "Publicly, the tobacco industry has denied that exposure to ETS has been proven dangerous to health. It has criticized the methodology of published research on ETS, even when some of its own consultants have privately acknowledged that the research was valid. In addition, the industry has funded scientific research with the stated purpose of anticipating and refuting the evidence against ETS." . MastCell Talk 20:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not really sure what this is supposed to be saying, but it's a whole lot of nothin'. It falls far short of saying that the industry has endorsed the conclusions...only that they criticized the methodology, while some from within disagreed.  It also fails to discredit the industry's research.  Maybe they were just following the lead of the EPA to some degree (before actually doing the research, stating the purpose yet not going so far as to state the conclusion...and foregoing the cherry picking, of course). Chido6d 02:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's just yet another source indicating that the industry was aware, from its own research, that passive smoking was likely harmful long before the EPA report ("BAT researchers appear to have determined that sidestream smoke... is "biologically active" (eg, carcinogenic) in laboratory tests.") Also, it goes along with the vast array of solid secondary sources discrediting the industry's research. I'm not sure where to work it in, so I put it here for now. MastCell Talk 05:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Understood, but I still don't see where/how it discredits industry research. The only argument I see going on is the interpretation of results, statistical significance, or -- since Judge Kessler's opinion -- whether statistical significance even matters.  Remember, it's just "art", and it's all about how you paint the picture. Chido6d 11:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What MastCell is concluding is quite valid from the quote. The industry experts were aware and acknowledged external research, but ran specific research for the purposes of discrediting acknowledged data.  Though this quote does not directly address research methodology (I'll try do dig up more on that), it does directly address intent. Djma12 (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Chido, Kessler's opinion made clear that you had, on one side of the argument, a single "non-credible" expert witness presented by the tobacco industry. On the other, you had (among others) Sir Richard Peto, Sir Richard Doll, the Surgeon General, the EPA, WHO, IARC, National Research Council, and the American Heart Association. Taking a quote about a "term of art" out of context to make it sound like it's all just hand-waving is highly misleading. As to specifically addressing the research methodology, the Kessler opinion does get into that a little. For general examples of the industry's approach to methodology, see and . For a specific example of the industry's control over the papers it funded, see.
 * Also for consideration: Tobacco industry efforts at discrediting scientific knowledge of environmental tobacco smoke: a review of internal industry documents..
 * "Conclusions about exposure to ETS and health that will be unhelpful to us": how the tobacco industry attempted to delay and discredit the 1997 Australian National Health and Medical Research Council report on passive smoking. . MastCell Talk 15:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * A highly credible source, and one which cannot be taxed of anti-tobacco activism, comes from the report on an inquiry conducted by a commission of experts of different fields at the University of Geneva, including biological ethics, into the now famous case of the called "independent scientist", prof. Ragnar Rylander (see ). This reputed professor at the University of Geneva did research on children's exposure to passive smoking and respiratory diseases, and came systematically in all his publications with the conclusion that all kinds of factors were to blame for the children's repetitive bronchitis and other respiratory problems, except parental smoking. Two tobacco-control activists discovered and revealed that this professor had been all the time secretly employed by Philip Morris, that he had manipulated his results, and that, as covert coordinator of a secret biological laboratory of Philip Morris in Germany, he was one of the first and best informed person in the world about the toxicity of secondhand smoke, fact that he had dissimulated. The case led to a trial, which went up to the supreme court of Switzerland. In the final ruling (see ), Rylander was found guilty of being a secret agent for Philip Morris and of "a scientific fraud without precedent". The conclusions of the inquiry report can be used to illuminate the current debate:


 * Prof. Rylander’s infringements of scientific integrity take on their full significance only when viewed within the framework of a strategy devised and conducted by the tobacco industry to cast doubt on the toxicity of tobacco smoke, particularly for non-smokers. The case of one person should not make us forget that the most unforgivable fault lies with an institutional and commercial force, the tobacco industry, whose objectives and interests run counter to both public health and medical science. The huge mass of tobacco industry documents released as a result of rulings against it by United States courts shows that these companies have attempted to manipulate public opinion for decades and that the targeted involvement of numerous scientists has been a preferred tool in that disinformation campaign. The tobacco industry cannot be considered as a credible partner in independent scientific research. The Commission proposes that from now on University members be prohibited from soliciting research subsidies or direct or indirect consultancies with the tobacco industry. This measure is intended to protect researchers’ scientific integrity. (p. 4 - emphasis added)
 * Prof. Rylander’s infringements of scientific integrity take on their full significance only when viewed within the framework of a strategy devised and conducted by the tobacco industry to cast doubt on the toxicity of tobacco smoke, particularly for non-smokers. The case of one person should not make us forget that the most unforgivable fault lies with an institutional and commercial force, the tobacco industry, whose objectives and interests run counter to both public health and medical science. The huge mass of tobacco industry documents released as a result of rulings against it by United States courts shows that these companies have attempted to manipulate public opinion for decades and that the targeted involvement of numerous scientists has been a preferred tool in that disinformation campaign. The tobacco industry cannot be considered as a credible partner in independent scientific research. The Commission proposes that from now on University members be prohibited from soliciting research subsidies or direct or indirect consultancies with the tobacco industry. This measure is intended to protect researchers’ scientific integrity. (p. 4 - emphasis added)


 * Contrary to what Chido6d thinks, the Inquiry Commission saw how and where this discredits the industry research. They had a good case at hand. They nevertheless felt it necessary to provide the following explanation:


 * It should be noted that:
 * (a) at no time did the Commission criticise Prof. Rylander’s opinions as such, or the fact that he accepted research funding from the tobacco industry;
 * (b) the Commission did not consider Prof. Rylander’s activities unrelated to the issue of smoking.
 * On the other hand, the Commission is of the opinion that dissimulating the true extent of dependent ties with the tobacco industry and aligning his activities as researcher and expert in tobacco-related issues with the industry’s strategic objectives, constitute a violation of scientific integrity that the public and his peers are entitled to expect from a university researcher.
 * On the other hand, the Commission is of the opinion that dissimulating the true extent of dependent ties with the tobacco industry and aligning his activities as researcher and expert in tobacco-related issues with the industry’s strategic objectives, constitute a violation of scientific integrity that the public and his peers are entitled to expect from a university researcher.


 * It is my opinion that the two documents which I just refered to (namely and ) fulfill Wikipedia requirement for reliable and authoritative sources and they therefore deserve a place in the controversy section, as they illustrate the point quite well and on the basis of facts which have been validated both by a prestigious European university and by the courts of a country outside the USA, and not any country, but by tobacco-industry friendly Switzerland.
 * --Dessources 18:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Denialism and passive smoking
At the core of the current debate about the section entitled Criticism of the scientific majority view lies a fundamental problem: it is a matter of sorting the wheat from the weeds. Indeed, while there may be a few good-faith skeptics, who would constitute a true scientific minority, these are difficult to separate from the denialists, who seem to make by far the largest share of the population of people who challenge the scientific consensus about the health effects of secondhand smoke. I think it is an important distinction to make, and I think it ought to be made, even if this will be confronted with a barrage of opposition from the denialists themselves. To identify the part associated with denialism, I would suggest we use the criteria spelled out in the Wikipedia article on Denialism, which I reproduce here with my comments on the applicability of these criteria to the passive smoking issue:

Based on this very sketchy analysis, I would propose the creation of an article called Denial of the health effects of passive smoking. It seems that the case for such an article is strong and perhaps as well documented and backed by solid sources as is the case for other topics which are the subject of denialism, such as Global warming and AIDS reappraisal. Actually, there might be interesting commonalities between these different brands of denialism, and we might discover common actors - professional denialists - operating across different subjects. (On this last point, see Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air - How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science, a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists)

--Dessources 21:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * These are interesting and notable issues. I do think that a title like Denial in XXXX is likely to be non-neutral, but it may be an argument for spinning off an article on passive smoking controversy. I think the bottom line is that any coverage of the controversy needs to take into account the reams of reliable evidence that the industry has manufactured much of the controversy to suit its own needs. I understand that Chido and Mickeyklein would like to set this up as a purely scientific debate, but in verifiable terms the scientific debate has been pretty much settled, and the industry's central and well-documented role in the controversy is undeniably relevant and notable. MastCell Talk 21:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Granted, Denial in XXXX is likely to be non-neutral, but not necessarily. An article on Denial in XXXX could very well be treated in a neutral way, even if the topic itself raises a lot of emotion on the part of some of the readers and editors. What is needed is to have the concept of "denial" well defined (it appears to be), in objective terms, and then to show that there are reliable and authoritative sources which substantiate the point being made in the article. This is what is done for the Climate change denial article, and I do not see a POV tag at the top of it. We could use this article as a model.
 * Another interesting reference, which could be used as source for my comments in the table above is: How Tobacco-Friendly Science Escapes Scrutiny in the Courtroom, by Lissy C. Friedman, JD, Richard A. Daynard, JD, PhD, and Christopher N. Banthin, JD. Am J Public Health. 2005;95:S16–S20. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2004.046227)
 * --Dessources 22:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Funny you should mention climate change denial - at its deletion nomination, I recommended that it be merged to a more "neutral" title, so at least I'm consistent! I think the example of Allegations of Israeli apartheid is instructive. Clearly there are numerous sources that have compared Israel's policies to apartheid. But creating a Wikipedia article with that title, rather than handling those sources in a more neutral title like Human rights in Israel, has been a major disaster currently being handled by ArbCom. Similarly, the phrase AIDS reappraisal sets my teeth on edge (if that's not denialism, nothing is) - but I still prefer it as an article title to "AIDS denialism", for the same reasons. Handling the very real issue of denialism in a neutrally titled article is, I think, the best approach. MastCell Talk 22:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I had not realized that the article climate change denial had been nominated for deletion. I find the discussion about whether to delete or keep it very interesting and of relevance for our debate here. I note also that the decision has been to keep it. We could use many of the reasons invoked for this decision as guidance for the drafting of the Denial of the health effects of passive smoking article (I am not making a case of the exact wording of the title). There is a denial industry in tobacco, and tobacco is probably the field which invented the modern notion of "denial industry". Indeed, as early as early as 1969, "an executive at Brown & Williamson, a cigarette maker now owned by R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, unwisely committed to paper the perfect slogan for his industry’s disinformation campaign: “Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the mind of the general public.”" (quotation from "Doubt is their product", by David Michaels, Scientific American, June 2005).
 * --Dessources 23:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Very interesting. Hopefully, time will allow me to submit my own version of this chart sometime this weekend. Chido6d 11:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Short-term effects
You need to make sure this stays under short-term effects;

The US Surgeon General has concluded that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Breathing secondhand smoke for even a short time can have immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system, interfering with the normal functioning of the heart, blood, and vascular systems in ways that increase the risk of heart attack.

citation: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/factsheets/factsheet7.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.170.226.2 (talk) 17:19, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

POV tag revisited
So it's been half a month now and the topic seems to have reached stagnation. What specific steps need to be addressed in the article for the POV tag to be taken off? Djma12 (talk) 13:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There is currently an out-standing RfM for this article. I think that until the RfM gets resolved, the involved editors (myself included) have agreed to leave the tag in place. Currently under review are two proposed rewrites of the section under dispute. You might want to take a look. I've been dragging my feet on weighing in--i'm going to go do that now. Yilloslime 03:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There is an example above of a major point of contention in the small section entitled Short term effects. The words missing from the paragraph would be something to the effect of "He (or the former SG) said in his 2006 report that...".  Instead, his conclusion (I am referring to the second sentence) is presented as a fact.
 * The other major sticking point is that some editors are insisting that the article be written from a certain point of view (which, I acquiesce, is a majority view). In itself, this may even be quite proper.  But not only this, they insist that the minority view can only be presented if it is interspersed with commentary and counterarguments from sources that adopt the majority view.
 * Feel free to read the mediation case page for more information. Chido6d 23:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This should have a permanent NPOV tag, the very topic is more political than scientific. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.253.125 (talk) 08:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

wow
This is the least factual, most bloated, most biased Wikipedia article ever. It reads like it was written by a well informed smoke-hater, seriously are you those "truth" people? And FYI, for every "expert" willing to go out on a limb on this one, there is another "expert" going in the opposite direction so there is hardly a scientific consensus. 198.203.175.175 22:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The existence of a scientific consensus is well-referenced and documented in the article. You don't have to agree with the consensus, but it's hard to take your comment seriously if you won't even acknowledge its existence. Actually, the phrase "smoke-hater" also undermines you a bit. MastCell Talk 22:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I am still not happy with the passive smoking article. I think it could be improved by a verbatim quote from the source paper by Boffetta et al. I suggest that there be added the following:

"RESULTS: ETS exposure during childhood was not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (odds ratio [OR] for ever exposure = 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64- 0.96). The OR for ever exposure to spousal ETS was 1.16 (95% CI = 0.93- 1.44) . No clear dose-response relationship could be demonstrated for cumulative spousal ETS exposure. The OR for ever exposure to workplace ETS was 1.17 (95% CI = 0.94-1.45), with possible evidence of increasing risk for increasing duration of exposure." "CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk. We did find weak evidence of a dose-response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS."

An appropriate place for it, or some similar quote, might be following the first sentence of "World Health Organization Report controversy". Ray JohnstoneRayJohnstone 08:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with MastCell - for one thing this article should be the "Theory of second hand smoke" - not "Passive smoking". Besides that this article is HORRIBLY biased, even worse than smoking or Health effects of tobacco smoking

Also there should be a link to Smokers Rights Naacats 08:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Naacats - perhaps the reason that your views on the articles Smoking ("horribly biased" ) and the Health effects of tobacco smoking ("pure speculation" ) and this one are so hotly disputed is not that those who disagree with you are "anti-smoking bigots", but that the consensus is that your position is wrong. Certainly until you acknowledge that sources like the BMA, WHO, and CDC are reliable and permissible under wikipedia guidelines, you're not going to be much use to these articles.
 * The ETS / childhood issue has been covered in the past, most recently by User:Dessources (25 July) and User:Yilloslime (18 July) above. You are quite right that this was a finding of the study, and it may warrant a mention - but there are several other secondary sources (see WP:MEDRS for details on why these are better than primary) already in the article. Nmg20 15:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Naacats is an almost religious activist. We've had to listen to it over at the smoking article (Talk:Smoking all the way to the bottom!), and they're rolling their eyes over at Talk:Health_effects_of_tobacco_smoking too. Help us out, if you fee like it. TeamZissou 05:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Controversy section
In the wake of the now-closed Mediation case, I'd like to ask editors to take a look at a proposed replacement for the current controversy section, found here: User:MastCell/Passive smoking draft. This draft had substantial, though not unanimous, support in mediation. In the absence of specific objections, I'd like to implement it in the article. MastCell Talk 23:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll endorse the Mastcell draft. (Full disclosure: I was part of the mediation case.) Yilloslime (t) 23:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I, too, was part of the mediation case where someone withdrew privately and without notice.
 * I am strongly opposed to many aspects of this draft.  Specific examples for my opposition will be provided in the coming days.
 * Another draft that was presented and discussed during the case can be found here: Talk:Passive smoking/Controversy draft. Chido6d 03:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I withdrew from the mediation process because I thought it was going nowhere after many weeks. I had flagged my view on this long before, and finally decided to take action. I endorse the Mastcell draft. JQ 11:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's unfortunate that the withdrawal of one party shuts down the case altogether. Chido6d 15:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I was also part of the mediation, and my impression was that it was in a deadlock. I therefore understand John Quiggin's request and I was about to submit the same request. Nevertheless, I think that, although the mediation did not reach its goal, something good came out of it: a much improved version of the controversy section has been produced by MastCell, who has taken great pains to accommodate the other side's views to the extent possible, whithout breaching the editorial policy of Wikipedia. I endorse his draft and support his proposal to implement it in the article.
 * --Dessources 15:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As there has been significant support for this draft as an improvement over the current section, I'm going to move it to the article. Of course it's not a finished product, and we can address any specific objections here; however, experience teaches me that these may or may not be forthcoming from User:Chido6d. When provided, they can be addressed here. MastCell Talk 19:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Belatedly, I'd endorse MastCell's version, too - there are things I'd like to change, but it's an improvement over the article as is, and a better rewrite than Chido6d's. Nmg20 20:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to thank MastCell who has done a great job. As foreshadowed in the mediation discussion, I've moved a couple of sections on scientific and public opinion out of the controversy section. The new section does a great job of showing how the tobacco industry has created bogus controversy. It's good that we cover Enstrom/Kabat, Gori, Milloy and others as their material is promoted in tobacco industry and libertarian websites. Wikipedia should ensure that the facts are available to those who want them, and the current draft does a good job on this. JQ 23:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Since some of you have lauded praise on the recent changes, I felt that an explanation for my revert would be a courteous gesture. It is most disturbing to have an artificial ending to the mediation process, then to have the same disputed changes rammed into the article when there are legitimate disagreements and serious questions have been left unanswered. This article does not belong to a small group of editors as a tool to advance their own point of view while violating Wikipedia's pillars. The list of flagrant abuses is voluminous and would consume far too much of my time to exhaustively list. I will, however, cite several specific examples:
 * The "Public Opinion" section is worded in a biased fashion (widespread public acceptance of the harms of secondhand smoke instead of the more neutral widespread belief that secondhand smoke is harmful). The editor combines groups in the poll to his liking and for a more dramatic effect.  54% of those polled believe that passive smoke is "very harmful", while 32% believe it is "somewhat harmful".
 * There are needless statements of sensationalism. For example, in the introductory paragraph, the then Surgeon General issued a report in 1986 "responding to growing evidence of the harms of passive smoking."  It appears that this is an effort at dramatization -- all to advance a certain point of view.  In the same paragraph, "the accumulation of scientific evidence...led to a scienfitic consensus", rather than simply stating that a scientific consensus has been formed.
 * Questionable selectivity: The author quotes Dr. George Davey Smith saying that Enstrom and Kabat "may overemphasize the negative nature of their findings", when he also said, "the impact of environmental tobacco smoke on health remains under dispute."
 * The 1997 letter from Dr. Enstrom to PM really has nothing to do with the 2003 study. It is part of a vicious ad hominem attack by the ACS.  I find it amazing that this information is deemed more important than the fact that the BMJ was vilified for publishing this study, yet the Editor defended the publication.
 * Gio Batta Gori is still called a "full time tobacco industry consultant" (implying this is current information) when the source is out of date and there is no evidence (to my knowledge) that he received compensation from tobacco companies after 1999. This has been pointed out on at least two occasions -- it was altered at one time to reflect accuracy; now it has mysteriously reappeared in its "original" form.
 * The second half of the "Good Epidemiology Practices" paragraph contains information that is not supported by the source.
 * There is a deliberate and unjustified effort to suppress the results of the 1998 WHO/IARC study. The weak, insincere explanation that has been put forth is neither convincing nor acceptable.
 * The WHO's suppression of data is "alleged", while the tobacco industry "engineering" is not.
 * The ruling against the EPA is unacceptably watered down. The most reprehensible actions committed -- "cherry picking" the evidence according to their liking, and actually adjusting the confidence interval to achieve a desired result -- are instead described as "(failing) to follow proper scientific and epidemiologic practices."
 * A full reading of the contribution clearly reveals editorial bias and numerous violations of WP:NPOV. This list is far from exhaustive; for these reasons and others, the recent edits have been reverted. Chido6d 03:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * To make a sweeping anti-consensus edit, and then to accuse others of "flagrant abuses," is the height of arrogance. Raymond Arritt 03:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any further reason for tolerating disruption of this article by single-purpose advocates of a tobacco industry viewpoint. I've removed the POV tag, and will oppose any attempts by Chido6d to damage this article. JQ 10:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not "revert the revert", but I replaced the tag while I research other means of dispute resolution. There was not an anti-consensus edit.  The changes were proposed in mediation; the case was terminated without notice or explanation by one party before mediation had run its course.  Anyone who pretends to know so much about what is going on should have been a party to the case.
 * As it has been in the past (and the record shows), the shortcomings I point out have, once again, gone largely unanswered. Instead, there are attacks on my point of view (which is irrelevant to the content), nuances, innuendo and musings about what the reader might think from using one word rather than another, and so forth.  Highly relevant points made about selectivity, misuse of sources and sensationalism in order to advance a point of view -- yes, flagrantly -- are completely ignored in favor of this.
 * If I am only trying to disrupt, I challenge anyone to find an example where I have misquoted a source or have been so selective with a source that my contribution is/was misleading. I have several such examples where this has been done by other(s) who have not been chided by those who attack me.  Physician, heal thyself. Chido6d 11:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually it was an anti-consensus edit. When you have 5 editors for one version, and a lone single purpose account against it, you have a consensus. And so when that lone dissenter reverts, it's an anit-consensus edit. Yilloslime (t) 17:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

As usual, there are some reasonable points raised by Chido6d, though as usual they are drowned out by posturing. Regarding specifics: Further: Other issues:
 * I agree that public opinion polls most properly reflect the belief of the public rather than scientific fact. I've therefore edited the sentence criticized by Chido6d to be more in line with this:
 * The phrase "responding to growing scientific evidence", criticized by Chido6d, is indeed probably unecessary and overly wordy. I've removed it: . As to "accumulating scientific evidence", this is simply a factual statement reflected in the Surgeon General's report and is a useful indication that evidence has, indeed, accumulated and that the state of knowledge is far different in 2006 as opposed to 1986. MastCell Talk 19:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the issue regarding Gori is reasonable and we need to stay close to the sources here, so I've gone back to describing him as a former NCI official and more recently a full-time tobacco industry consultant - a description fully supported by sources: MastCell Talk 19:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that Enstrom specifically set out to "compete against" the mountain of evidence that passive smoking was harmful is relevant to the interpretation of his findings, a point raised by the ACS among other critics. I'm surprised that someone so hard on the EPA for supposedly going in with pre-concluded notions doesn't see the significance of this. Other reliable secondary sources certainly do.
 * The WHO's alleged suppression of data is alleged because it was subsequently shown to be false by reliable secondary sources. On the other hand, the tobacco industry's engineering of the controversy has not been so disproven. These are not equivalent scenarios.
 * As to "Good Epidemiology Practices", the source states: Sanders describes PM's initial objective [with GEP] as to discredit epidemiologic results with relative risks of less than 2, but the company realized that no epidemiological organization would agree to such a standard. This is properly and accurately represented in the article. MastCell Talk 19:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The point made by MastCell's concerning public opinion polls is well taken, and I have removed my comment about this question - which was an unnecessary overreaction to Chido6d's comment above. I would still argue that opinion polls try to capture what people think, not necessarily what they believe. For example, as an extreme case, it would be wrong, or at best misleading, to report the result of a survey asking people whether the earth is round or flat, by saying that the public believes the earth is round. At some stage, a scientific evidence becomes accepted as such by the public too, and what may have started as a belief becomes collective knowledge. The harms caused by exposure to secondhand smoke is gradually becoming accepted by the public as a scientific fact. When asked "Why do you state that passive smoking is dangerous", many, if not most, people will answer "Because it is scientifically proven". However, the Surgeon General 2006 Report, which MastCell uses as reference, refers to public opinion polls as being about attidudes and beliefs of the public. Therefore, the word belief is indeed more faithful to the source used by MastCell, and I agree with the proposed change.

I do not agree with the change made in the description of Gio Gori. It is unclear why we need to mention that he was a former NCI official - he left 27 years ago - and why we need to say that he is a full time consultant. I would propose that we simply say "Gio Gori, a tobacco industry consultant", and for the rest, people can click on his name to get to the Gio Batta Gori article.

For the rest, I agree with all the other changes made by MastCell to his text.

--Dessources 00:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Concerning the reference to Gio Batta Gori, the simplification which I made to the text also removed the reference to the tobacco industry document ETS/IAQ SCIENTIFIC CONSULTANTS. Actually, I think that internal tobacco industry documents do not qualify as reliable sources for Wikipedia. They are of the raw information type, and it is only when they are referenced in a paper which is itself considered a reliable source that they can be mentioned, or they can be referenced in complement of a reliable source, but not to add new information. Otherwise, this is original research. The article on Gio Batta Gori suffers from this shortcoming, as the only references given in it are internal tobacco documents. I think this is an important policy point, and I'd like to seek the opinion of other editors on this question.
 * A document that may perhaps be used as a reliable source of information on people and their links to the tobacco inbdustry is United States' Factual Memorandum Pursuant to Order #470, Section V, August 16, 2004. In Table 2 of this document, Gio Matta Gori is listed as a tobacco industry consultant and an expert on risk utility and scientific research. (Table 2 of the Factual memorandum). Kessler's judgment could also be used as a reliable source on Gori: the judgment describes him as "spokeperson and consultant for the tobacco industry since leaving NCI in the early 1980s".
 * --Dessources 08:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Etymology
I feel that this article is missing is an exploration of the etymological origins of the term 'passive smoking'.

I have seen sections of other articles dedicated to the etymological roots of various words / terms.

There is a certain amount of evidence to suggest that the term 'passive smoking' was calqued into the English language from the German 'passivrauchen'. The article from which I learnt this information was published in a reputable medical journal (Bulletin of the History of Medicine 71.3 (1997) 435-488). The author is Robert N Proctor and the article is called: The Nazi War on Tobacco: Ideology, Evidence, and Possible Cancer Consequences.

Unfortunately, the article is copyrighted, so I cannot post a link to the article, which is illuminating and intriguing. Moreover, the link I have would require an Athens password to read the article.

However, there is nothing preventing me from posting the source of the coinage of 'passivrauchen' - '''Fritz Lickint, Tabak und Organismus: Handbuch der gesamten Tabakkunde (Stuttgart: Hippokrates-Verlag, 1939), pp. 260-65.

I have an available link to p 185 of Proctor's 1999 book "The Nazi War on Cancer" from Google books, in which he restates Linckint's apparent coinage of the term. I hope this is ok copyright wise:

There appears to be evidence suggesting that Lickint coined the term 'passivrauchen' in 1930s Germany. The etymological derivation of 'passive smoking' is, in my opinion, worth mentioning.

82.42.54.88 23:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Why? "Passive smoking" is not even the most common English term used to describe this phenomenon; "secondhand smoke" is the more common lay term, while "environmental tobacco smoke" is more commonly used in the scientific literature. Should we discuss the etymology of those terms as well, or only the ones that can be linked to the Nazis? MastCell Talk 05:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Second hand smoke" is a deliberately designed to be politically provocative. The original point is valid.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.212.83 (talk) 08:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know if the term "second hand smoke" was "designed" to be politically provocative, and by whom (sounds like a familiar conspiracy theory), but what I know is that the public has adopted the term, which is now in wide usage. Indeed, a Google search gives the following result:
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Term (exact phrase) ! Pages
 * Second hand smoke
 * align="right" | 1'400'000
 * Secondhand smoke
 * align="right" | 1'390'000
 * Passive smoking
 * align="right" | 1'100'000
 * Environmental tobacco smoke
 * align="right" | 848'000
 * }
 * --Dessources 09:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Environmental tobacco smoke
 * align="right" | 848'000
 * }
 * --Dessources 09:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that it would also be useful for the etymologies of SHS and / or ETS to be included. This would not reflect the title of the article, but the three terms are used interchangeably.

In certain parts of the world, 'passive smoking' is more commonly used anyway.

You seem to think I have some sort of axe to grind. I don't - I merely thought the etymology of 'passive smoking' was of interest, verifiable and worthy of inclusion. I don't understand the animosity elicited by the suggested exploration of the etymology of the title of the article.

82.42.54.88 12:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Proctor wrote, in the conclusion of the article you cite above: My intention has not been to argue that today's antitobacco efforts have fascist roots, or that public health measures are totalitarian in principle. Yet you can imagine the relish with which the Nazi antitobacco campaign is exploited by some of today's deniers of the harms of passive smoking, who make exactly those sort of claims (Godwin's Law notwithstanding). That said, Proctor's article devotes about 8 words to the origin of the term "passive smoking" in a 40-page article, saying that Lickint "seems to have coined the term". I'm not sure that this rises to the level of either real verifiability, or notability. It would be potentially useful to discuss the variety of terms used to refer to this phenomenon, and their origins, but I think we need a little more in the way of sourcing first. MastCell Talk 17:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the term is definitely German in origin (see Oxford English Dictionary entry on passive smoking). However, the entry dates its usage '1976 or before'. This surprises me, as its usage in 1939 should be easily verifiable by simply getting a hold of a copy of the book. I may contact the OED and request they undertake further research to confirm or repudiate the earlier usage alleged by Proctor.

However, the OED is not infallible. Shakespeare seemingly used many words prior to the dating the OED applies to them - Oxford World Classics' copies of Shakespeare's work openly question their compatriots at the OED on numerous occasions.

I will do more research on this matter and get back to you. I suppose the context of usage in Lickint's work is important. A friend of mine speaks German fluently. If I can lay my hands on a copy of the work, I will ask him to translate the relevant passages, and see if Lickint's coinage of passivrauchen is congruent with modern-day definitions and can be considered evidential of etymology.

I have found it difficult, as yet, to find anything relating to the etymology of SHS / ETS. I'll do further research on the matter. Timclarke85 18:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * A word of caution: while the initiative to follow up on this is commendable, we generally need some sort of reliable published source which can be cited to verify facts for Wikipedia's purposes. Personal research, while invaluable in real life, is generally not accepted on Wikipedia unless backed by such a reliable published source. MastCell Talk 18:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not object to such a section on etymology, provided the full context is given and that all the terms are covered. Clearly, Prof. Fritz Lickint's pioneering work on the health consequences of tobacco should be mentioned, together with the fact that he probably coined the word Passivrauchen. In 1930, Lickint published a paper entitled "Tobacco and tobacco smoke as aetiological factors for carcinoma", which was one the first review papers, if not the first, of the subject, which included 167 literature citations. Finally, to avoid any possibility of confusion with the Nazis, it will important to indicate that Lickint belonged to the Social Democratic Party of Germany, banned by Hitler in 1933, and was a member of the "Vereins sozialistischer Ärzte" (Association of socialist doctors), and that he was dismissed in 1934 from his position at Küchwald hospital in Chemnitz by the National Socialists. (See ) --Dessources 08:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Dessources. I will continue to research this and report my findings in due course

Timclarke85 22:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia and Integrity
An author for Wikipedia should be unbiased but not uncritical . Boffetta et al in the abstract to their WHO paper make two statements about passive smoking in childhood and lung cancer:

“ETS exposure during childhood was not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (odds ratio [OR] for ever exposure = 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64- 0.96).”

and

“Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk.”

Anyone with a knowledge of statistical inference will see immediately that these two statements are mutually contradictory. This comment is not original research or interpretation. It is an observation: the authority is contradicting itself. Their results show that passive smoking in childhood is associated with a statistically significant reduction in the risk of lung cancer.

Of course Wikipedia should rely upon authorities.

I expect that to be the case when I consult Wikipedia. But when an authority produces a statement which is self-evidently false I expect also to be told that. Such occasions will, I hope and expect, be extremely rare. But when they do occur and Wikipedia is so informed the issue must be addressed. Failure to do so will, by default, mislead the public.

In this case there is a simple remedy. Wikipedia have given the WHO study separate and segregated attention. This is ample justification for its results to be explicitly and numerically stated.

Without such probity, Wikipedia will fail in its high ambition.

I fear it has already done so. RayJohnstone 03:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As this is the third or fourth time you have brought up this particular sub-finding of this particular study, I'll briefly reiterate the issues raised the last few times. There have been dozens of major studies of passive smoking, of which Boffetta's is one. You seem determined to highlight an individual sub-finding of this study which happens to agree with your POV and magnify it far out of proportion to its place in the evidence base. That's cherry-picking. I won't debate statistics and biological plausibility with you; suffice to say that numerous highly appropriate secondary sources exist - expert bodies the world over have reviewed all of the data, including Boffetta's findings - and have universally concluded that secondhand smoke exposure is a risk factor for lung cancer. Integrity to Wikipedia's principles demands that we not tie ourselves in knots trying to deny or minimize this. MastCell Talk 04:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ray, you raise a good point. The problem is simply that wikipedia is not the appropriate venue for making the argument you want to make, for the reasons MastCell has outlined above. Have you considered getting your own blog (I think blogspot blogs are free) or signing up a different wiki, like perhaps www.conservapedia.com. Yilloslime (t) 16:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * RayJohnstone comes back to a question which he has already raised on this page and which has been given more than its share of attention and explanations. This is not the place to re-open a debate which lacks substance. Indeed, the answer to his question is provided in the paper by Boffetta et al.: at the bottom of page 1148, the authors of the paper give the following explanation:

"The evidence from the available European studies of an association between ETS exposure during childhood and lung cancer risk is inconsistent (8,9). Among the non-European studies, Janerich et al. (33) provided evidence of an increased risk related to exposure in childhood or adolescence. The remaining studies [see (34) for a review], however, failed to confirm this finding. In the light of the inconsistent findings of other studies, our results on childhood ETS exposure can be plausibly interpreted as sampling fluctuation around a relative risk of 1 (no effect) and do not allow us to conclude that ETS exposure during childhood is protective against lung cancer."
 * This is what the source says. Some may wish to challenge the authors and re-open the debate, but, as Yilloslime observes, Wikipedia is not the appropriate venue.

You are quite right, but just as a matter of interest you might like to know that neither Boffetta et al nor the review they quote (34, Tredaniel et al) mention studies which conflict with their conclusions. Try looking for Brownson et al: I give a reference at http://members.iinet.com.au/~ray/b.html and it is likely available at the tobaccodocuments site.RayJohnstone 07:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as Wikipedia is concerned, an authoritative secondary source which addresses RayJohnstone's question is the WHO/IARC Monograph, which was published in 2004 and produced by 25 of the world's top experts in cancer research, epidemiology and tobacco control. As I have already explained above on this talk page in answer to a question by RayJohnstone, the WHO/IARC monograph reviews 24 studies addressing the risk of cancer associated with childhood exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke. The WHO/IARC experts conclude that the results are inconsistent. Some studies exhibit an apparent protective effect (including the Boffetta study) and others show an apparent deleterious effect. The experts conclude that meta analyses do not suggest an association (same as Boffetta et al. conclusion).


 * Finally, it is difficult to understand RayJohnstone's insistence to have this point addressed. Indeed, it is generally accepted that exposure to secondhand smoke during childhood has no conclusive effect on the later development of cancer during adult life, one way or the other. This is not a controversial point, and there is therefore no reason to single it out among the potentially infinite set of undebated points.
 * --Dessources 20:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Your reference to the WHO report (WHO/IARC Monograph) is to the summary. I can't find the full text on line. Do you have a reference for the full report?
 * RayJohnstone 04:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * RayJohnstone already asked the same question and was provided a clear answer (see "Boffetta study" section above - copied below for easy reference). Could he please in the future read the answers before aking the same questions again.
 * "The 24 studies are listed in Table 2.6, on pages 1260-61, of the referenced monograph. The meta-analyses are listed in Table 2.9, on page 1267. Both appear in the part entitled Involuntary smoking, pages 1189-1407. The link above gives access to Chapter 5 of the monograph, entitled 'Summary of data reported and evaluation,' which is the last chapter of the monograph (pages 1409-13), and the only one which is available online. The monograph may be ordered with WHO Press."
 * --Dessources 11:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. I can only say in my (weak) defence that it is easy to get lost in this rather large document. And if anyone has the WHO paper I'd like to see at least the relevant pages. It isn't available at any library near me.RayJohnstone 04:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration
I have filed a request for arbitration concerning this article and the recent turn of events. The POV tag is being placed. Chido6d 04:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Er, OK. Generally, a POV tag needs to be accompanied by specific concerns or concrete examples of bias, described here on the talk page, that you would like to see altered. On the occasions when you have presented such specific concerns, they have generally been addressed quite seriously, though such occasions have been far outnumbered by vague accusations of "advocacy". I'm not going to remove the tag right now, but please provide some such concrete issues for discussion. Otherwise your tagging gives the appearance that you've failed to convince other editors with your arguments and are now simply stalling the article. MastCell Talk 05:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not read MastCell's answer before remoiving the POV tag, but in any case I am not prepared to share his infinite patience on this issue. I accept the arbitration, but no the fact that this is used, as was done with mediation, to keep the POV tag at the top of the article for another endless period. Enough is enough.
 * --Dessources 06:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to note that this request was rejected 5-0, with comments indicating it was totally lacking in merit.JQ 23:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hardly. You have two expressing faith in the discussion process (yet acknowledging the dispute), two who give no reason whatsoever, and one who did not recuse himself in spite of his own extreme bias.  Take a look: Chido6d 04:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

For easy reference, this is the arbitrators' opinion:

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/5/0/0)
 * Reject, content dispute; no pressing need for us to get involved at this point. Kirill 17:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Reject, there is no reliable source for evidence that passive smoking is not harmful. Fred Bauder 18:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Reject. No need for a case. No reason that the community can not handle the content dispute and the editor conduct issues. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 20:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Reject. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Reject. James F. (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

--Dessources 00:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Synonyms
In regards to this series of edits:, , I think both Dessources and Peter Isotalo raise good points. "Involuntary smoking" is not a term I can ever remember hearing or reading here in the US, either in the mainstream or scientific literature. Therefore I think we could lose it, but maybe I just have a selective memory, or maybe it is widely used ouside the US. ETS on the other hand is widely used, at least in scientific literature and thus deserves to stay. There is an awkward grammar thing going on, though, IMHO. That is: while the terms "environmental tobacco smoke" and "secondhard smoke" are widely used, the gerund form of SHS, "secondhand smoking" is less used and sounds awkward. [Please excuse me if I've gotten my parts of speech wrong]. "Exposure to ETS" is also a mouthful. Maybe we could re-work the intro so that its in whatever tense it needs to be in so as to avoid these awkward constructions. What do you all think? Yilloslime (t) 15:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with you to some extent. Secondhand smoking sounds awkward. The section probably needs a bit of rewriting. But I would keep as it was before Peter Isotalo changed it until we have a more satisfactory version. Deleting refererence to environmental tobacco smoke and involuntary smoking is not the proper way, as the four terms need to be mentioned in some way as synonyms. If you read the titles of the first four references given in the article, which are the major sources on the subject, you see that they use all combinations of terms except passive smoking! Note in particluar that involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke is used in the title of the 2006 US Surgeon General Report (it was already used in the 1986 report).

1 WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control; First international treaty on public health, adopted by 192 countries and signed by 168. Its Article 8.1 states "Parties recognize that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco causes death, disease and disability." 2 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. "The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General", 2006; One of the major conclusions of the Surgeon General Report is: "Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke." 3 California Environmental Protection Agency: Air Resources Board, "Proposed Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant" (June 24, 2005); on January 26, 2006, the Air Resources Board, following a lengthy review and public outreach process, determined ETS to be a Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC). 4 WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer "Tobacco Smoke and Involuntary Smoking" IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Vol. 83, 2002; the evaluation of the Monograph is: "There is sufficient evidence that involuntary smoking (exposure to secondhand or 'environmental' tobacco smoke) causes lung cancer in humans. [...] Involuntary smoking (exposure to secondhand or 'environmental' tobacco smoke) is carcinogenic to humans (Group 1)."


 * Furthermore, in the body of the article, the term environmental tobacco smoke is used many times, including in the title of a section. Deleting it from the introductory section (where synonyms are usually indicated) leaves it to the reader to guess or deduce that this is an equivalent term or a synonym of some sort of passive smoking - not a very satisfactory solution. Even the term involuntary smoking is used several times in the body of the article (though only within quotations).
 * --Dessources 20:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I think you've convinced me that "involuntary smoking" should stay, too. I still think that some kind of rewrite to avoid "secondhand smoking" and "exposure to ETS" would improve the article. Yilloslime (t) 21:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you are ready to give it a try, I'll be with you.
 * --Dessources 23:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I took a shot at it. If you-all don't like it, I won't take it personal if someone reverts...Yilloslime (t) 02:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So did I, and I think I have made it more encyclopedic.Moriori 02:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not liking the term "involuntary smoke". "Involuntary smoking" is definitely less awkward. Otherwise I like your changes. Yilloslime (t) 02:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is a lot less awkward than the phrase " involuntary smoking is the involuntary inhalation" which is a sure sign we are growing this article like topsy. I'm not madly fussed, but I think we need to edit to be concise, and not repetitive. Also, your point re the word "forcing" is taken, so I have changed it to "causing". Cheers. Moriori 02:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't really like the new definition, but I think it is because we have a more important problem with this article - its name! Although better from a pure English point of view, the new version has a fundamental drawback - the emphasis it puts on the word "involuntary". Public health authorities are moving away from the term "involuntary smoking" and avoid the adjective "involuntary" when describing exposure to secondhand smoke (they are similarly moving away from the term "passive smoking"). There is a simple reason for that - the effects of breathing secondhand smoke are identical whether the breathing is voluntary or involuntary. The Conference of the Parties of the WHO Framework Convention Alliance on Tobacco Control (FCTC) has adopted the Directives on Article 8 - Protection from exposure to tobacco smoke (see ), which include the following section on terminology:


 * We should perhaps factor the above terminology considerations into our definition. The Directives on article 8. is the most recent text. It has been adopted unanimously by 147 countries (now 151 countries). It is therefore eligible to be considered as a reliable source for Wikipedia. Comments on how to proceed?
 * --Dessources 11:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Article worthy of inclusion somewhere?
Re: anti-smoking groups exaggerating the effects of SHS? 

Either here or in the smoking ban article, perhaps? I would probably have been more inclined to post it in the smoking ban discussion page, but I thought it better if I ask here as I think this discussion page is probably more widely monitored / read.

The article concludes that: "Based on the analysis, it appears that a large number of anti-smoking organizations are making inaccurate claims that a single, acute, transient exposure to secondhand smoke can cause severe and even fatal cardiovascular events in healthy nonsmokers. The dissemination of inaccurate information by anti-smoking groups to the public in support of smoking bans is unfortunate because it may harm the tobacco control movement by undermining its credibility, reputation, and effectiveness. Disseminating inaccurate information also represents a violation of basic ethical principles that are a core value of public health practice that cannot and should not be sacrificed, even for a noble end such as protecting nonsmokers from secondhand smoke exposure. How the tobacco control movement responds to this crisis of credibility will go a long way towards determining the future effectiveness of the movement and its ability to continue to save lives and protect the public's health."

Timclarke85 13:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The article's certainly a valid source. Does this claim - that a single, acute, transient exposure to SHS can cause cardiovascular events - get made anywhere in the wikipedia article? I can't see it if so - and if it doesn't, this source isn't really relevant. Nmg20 20:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem here is a controversy between Michael Siegel and, what he claims is the "rest of tobacco control movement," about an issue which is purely based on semantic. Siegel alleges that the rest of the tobacco control movement (actually the US part of it) falsely claims that exposure of short duration to ETS "causes" cardiovascular events, which he interpets as meaning that somebody perfectly healthy would suddenly become as sick as somedody who has smoked for 30 years after a short exposure to ETS of, say, 30 minutes. This is of course a ludicrous claim that nobody makes. What experts say is that exposure to ETS, even for a duration as short as 30 minutes, produce modifications in the blood that may trigger or precipitate the outcome of a cardiovascular event among subjects who already are at risk. A model of how this may happen has been well described in a paper published in the BMJ (I don't have it right now). This Siegel vs. the "rest of the tobacco control movement" debate sounds very much like a storm in a teapot and does not seem to be eligible at this stage for inclusion in an encyclopedia - it's better to leave it to time to sort it out, as in a few months the whole thing will most likely appear for what it is in reality - a pedantic and emotional semantic argument blown out of proportion by a person who seems to have elected himself as the Robin Hood of the tobacco control movement.
 * --196.28.249.109 21:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The context of that particular article, and issue, of EPI is quite interesting, as is the controversy surrounding the journal's editor, Carl V. Phillips. Though probably not particularly relevant to whether or not the article is included on Wikipedia. MastCell Talk 21:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Nmg - the wiki article does not claim that exposure to brief, tiny amounts of ETS does any measurable harm. Neither, however, does it claim that passive smoking is harmless, or of very little harm. Yet there is a great deal of criticism of tobacco companies who have, by and large all publicly stated, at one time or another, that SHS does a lot less harm than that held by the scientific consensus viewpoint. There is little criticism of tobacco control groups who now make unsubstantiated claims about the effects of ETS in outdoor areas in support of outdoor smoking bans. Siegel's peer reviewed article demonstrates that this is occurring. If secondary criticism of tobacco companies for making false claims about ETS is viable for inclusion in this article, I don't see why criticism of anti-smoking groups for making false claims about ETS is not.

196.28.249.109|196.28.249.109 - while I published that conclusion as illustrative of the general themes contained in Siegel's article, he cites a great deal of verifiable references where anti-smoking groups have made such fanciful and, not to say, hysterical claims. I haven't yet had time to plough through the entire 44 page pdf. However, just as an example, on page 5, Siegel documents Action on Smoking and Health making the claim that exposure to ETS for as little as 30 minutes raises an otherwise healthy non-smoker's risk of suffering a fatal heart attack to that of a smoker! He includes the url in his references at the end of the article (see p 42).Here is the link to ASH's claim:. Not only does Siegel document American tobacco control groups making such bogus claims, but he finds fallacious claims from organisations such as the British Heart Foundation (p 29). These claims do not contextualise the risk - that in order to be at risk from a small amount of tobacco smoke over a small time period, one must have a pre-existing coronary complaint. Ergo, they are hysterical, false, arguably deliberately misleading, and have profound public health implications. As Siegel shows on pages 5 and 6, ASH have used this to warn officials, such as members of the New Hampshire House of Representatives, and city officials of Calabasas, California, that these dire effects could come to pass if they didn't act to enact wide ranging smoking bans, insinuating they'd effectively have 'blood on their hands' if they didn't (my paraphrasing). ASH have done this in order to support indoor and outdoor smoking bans in New Hampshire and Calabasas, California respectively.

Timclarke85 23:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There were perhaps bogus claims made by some tiny minority anti-tobacco zealots (each cause, no matter how good it is, has supporters who go overboard), but these claims are clearly not representative of the scientific consensus. They are no more eligible for mention in Wikipedias than the prose of FORCES, as they are not backed by reliable sources meeting Wikipedia's editorial policy. As Michael Siegel addresses these claims (and I think he has a point), which have no place in Wikipedia, I do not see why and where Wikipedia would cover his paper. Furthermore, it seems that, before having Wikipedia involved in a recently raised issue, for which we only have a single source from a single author, it would be better to wait until the people who are under attacks have the time to reply, and, then, perhaps, if deemed of sufficient interest, Wikipedia may have a short paragraph summarizing the issue and reflecting the two sides of the argument. At this stage, it is therefore both inappropriate and premature to give some coverage to the Siegel article.
 * --196.28.249.109 09:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure if I'd call ASH, Americans for Non-smokers rights, the British Heart Foundation, Coalition for a Tobacco-free Hawaii, Campaign for Tobacco-free kids, Clearing the Air Scotland, etc., etc. a 'tiny minority'. I'd call them a vociferous and important minority, whose lobbying has profound impacts on the regulation of tobacco because of the potential adverse health effects of ETS.

The tobacco industry has frequently been caught downplaying the risks of ETS and thus misleading and propagating information which directly contradicts the scientific consensus. Now anti-smoking groups have been caught doing the same in relation to overhyping the effects of ETS. I still don't understand why the tobacco industrys' efforts to downplay the risks of ETS are more important than anti-tobacco groups deliberately overstating the risks of ETS. Both have had / have the potential to pose tremendous regulatory impacts re: ETS, if politicians and public servants believe such ridiculous claims. In fact, some of those who believe the 30-minute claim are regulatory bodies in themselves - such as the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. Outdoor smoking bans have been passed with lobbying from ASH specifically citing this claim.

In terms of it being a single source - if wiki needs more than one source, surely shouldn't many of the claims regarding tobacco industry dissemination of false information be ineligible because they are only supported by a single source? Even if Stanton Glantz, whose name crops up a lot, is a self-styled anti-smoking 'lunatic', I don't think they shouldn't, because they come from respectable, peer reviewed medical journals.

I can see where you are coming from in relation to giving the groups in question chance to respond. However, there are a lot of them contained in Siegel's article. Moreover, how much time do we give them?

Timclarke85 13:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this may best be handled under "Current State of Scientific Opinion", where we handle the views of Bailar et al who disagree with the risk size assessment. I'm not inclined to think that a single more-or-less opinion piece in a low-impact journal is notable enough to feature, given the weight of studies and evidence we're working with here. However, Siegel's views on the issue of acute exposure have actually received coverage elsewhere - I turned up this news item from JAMA. It may warrant a sentence or two along the lines of "Some researchers, while accepting the link between chronic secondhand smoke exposure and heart disease, question whether single, brief exposures are as harmful as they have been portrayed by some anti-smoking groups."
 * Drawing an equivalency between tobacco industry misinformation and the sort of thing alleged by Siegel is misleading. The actions of tobacco companies are documented by a huge volume of highly reliable sources. The exaggerations alleged by Siegel are documented in his EPI piece and, indirectly, in the JAMA article (as far as reliable sources go - I'm not counting FORCES). As far as "censorship" and "McCarthyism" which Siegel states he's experienced from the anti-smoking community, this seems to consist of him being removed from an anti-tobacco listserv. I'm not saying he doesn't have a point, but I do question whether this is notable enough to feature on Wikipedia, or whether it rises anywhere near the level of wrongdoing documented on the part of the tobacco industry. Our policies on undue weight would indicate that these are not to be treated as if they were equivalently relevant or notable - they're not. MastCell Talk 19:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Mastcell, I admit I did go off on a bit of a rant there in comparing the historical lies of tobacco companies and the lies of anti-smoking groups, and it was probably a little histrionic. Is Siegel's article going to be referenced, or the JAMA paper? The only difficulty I see with the JAMA article is that the average wiki user may not be a subscriber to JAMA or have an Athens password.

Anyway, if it gets a mention in a couple of sentences, then I'm content with that - it's the best I expected, given that it's only dealt with in a couple of articles.

I don't quite know why people keep mentioning FORCES to me - I'm not a member!

Timclarke85 21:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess we should start by including the points on which all reliable sources seem to be agreed.


 * Exposure to 30 minutes tobacco smoke causes measurable changes in the cardio-vascular system of non-smokers, healthy or not
 * For those already vulnerable, such exposure raises the risk of adverse events
 * These are quite significant, and it's good that Timclarke85 has drawn attention to these points, of which I was unaware. If there is continuing controversy over the effects on healthy non-smokers we should refer to that, but a (somewhat ambiguous, IMO) overstatement by an advocacy group, and a 'gotcha' response by another advocate don't amount to encyclopedic content. JQ 22:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how what ASH and several other groups have said is ambiguous. It is crystal clear.

Anyway, is this worthy of inclusion anywhere Warning: Anti-tobacco activitism may be hazardous to epidemiologic science?

Also, I think we should include this as part of Enstrom's response to the accusations levelled at him since Enstrom/Kabat:.

Timclarke85 12:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how much weight to give these pieces. This is a relatively new, low-impact journal edited by a person who is funded by the makers of smokeless tobacco and has a major bone to pick with the anti-smoking lobby. I dunno. I suppose we can work in Enstrom's response. MastCell Talk 17:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough about the Carl Phillips piece. I generally agree with you, I just thought it worth throwing up for discussion.

I think Enstrom also responded to his critics on the Enstrom / Kabat rapid response page of the BMJ site, but it was nowhere near the length / detail of his article in Epi. I think the sentence you proposed along the lines of, "Some researchers, while accepting the link between chronic secondhand smoke exposure and heart disease, question whether single, brief exposures are as harmful as they have been portrayed by some anti-smoking groups" should be inserted, either linking to Siegel's recent article, or the JAMA article (which I am unable to read, as my Athens account does not allow me to).

By the way, no problem about the FORCES stuff, Mastcell.

Timclarke85 19:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry - busy week. Tim - I take your points about the tobacco industry coming in for more criticism than antitobacco groups (although it is worth pointing out that the industry has previous in that it suppressed evidence direct smoking was harmful for years, claiming all the while that it wasn't) - but I don't think they're relevant to whether the article you originally cited gets included. If there are no antitobacco claims that a single, short-exposure dose of SHS is harmful in the wiki article, your source doesn't merit inclusion - it would just be saying "something very specific that this article doesn't say isn't true"...
 * I'd support JQ's suggestions above, noting only that Siegel's conclusion is unequivocal about the risks of SHS: "While there is ample evidence that chronic exposure to secondhand smoke increases the risk of cardiovascular disease, and therefore heart attack risk [1], and there is some suggestive evidence that acute exposure to secondhand smoke may present some degree of risk to individuals with existing severe coronary artery disease, there appears to be no scientific basis for claims that brief, acute, transient exposure to secondhand smoke increases heart attack risk..." Nmg20 20:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough Nmg. Can I edit articles about some of the anti-tobacco groups Siegel's article references?

Anyway, is anyone opposed to Enstrom's response to the allegations made against him in the 4+ years since Enstrom / Kabat being worked into the article?

Timclarke85 01:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, in fact I've already done so. MastCell Talk 03:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

What is POV?
I've made some solid edits to the article recently which were relevant and properly sourced. They were completely reverted twice by the team; the only reason given: "POV". Some questions came to mind: If there can't be an intelligent discussion of what POV is and what it is not (something that wasn't accomplished during mediation), what kind of damage is done to the credibility and integrity of this site? The POV tag is being placed on the article, as its neutrality is disputed. Chido6d 03:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * How is it POV to add a link from a non-profit organization with no conflict of interest?
 * How is it POV to note that two contributions are lacking their sources?
 * How is it POV to remove scare quotes?
 * How is it POV to correct cherry picking of an article in a medical journal? Isn't it POV to misuse an article to prove a point, when it really says much more?


 * Can you give examples, please? I think it's reasonable to assume that, if your edits have been reverted "by the team" then this notional team (read: other Wikipedians) disagrees with your edits. That means that posting the specific edits up here for discussion, as is required before slapping a POV tag on the article again, is a reasonable thing to do. Your questions above sound eminently reasonable - but without the details of the changed sections, they're little more than rhetoric.
 * Look forward to responding to the individual claims once I can see them - posting WP:DIFFS for your four points above would be fine and would take all of five minutes to do. Nmg20 08:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Experience teaches that engaging Chido6d is not particularly fruitful, but here goes. Here are Chido6d's edits (with actual diffs):
 * : probably acceptable, at least from my perspective.
 * : good edit, which has since been incorporated into the article
 * : misguided fact tagging; all of these surveys are covered and described in the Surgeon General's report, which is cited at the conclusion of the paragraph, so these are not "lacking sources" in any way.
 * : The editorial spent quite a bit of time on possible overemphasis of Enstrom/Kabat's negative findings; the quotes Chido6d has mined seem designed to further an unsupportable POV, and remind me of the constant quote mining another editor recently engaged in, in which any quote anywhere which used the word "small" in any context to describe the effects of passive smoking was brought up to be prominently featured, minus its context.
 * : Describing the Heartland Institute as "non-tobacco-affiliated" with "no conflict of interest" is laughable. They are heavily funded by Philip Morris (see, or check the tobacco documents archive). This link is undisguised partisan advocacy and adds nothing encyclopedic, and any item describing the American Cancer Society as a "liberal advocacy group" is difficult to take seriously in the first place. MastCell Talk 18:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Having reverted the edits in question, I'll explain my reasoning. I encountered the last absurdly POV example first as part of a string of five edits with no discussion, and could not be bothered digging through each of Chido6d's edits to see if any were worthwhile. On standard Bayesian grounds the optimal response to Chido6d's edits is reversion, and this set illustrates that. The most productive form of engagement would be to encourage Chido6d to contribute to some other article, or, perhaps, another encyclopedia, such as Conservapedia which would certainly not object to treating the Heartland Institute as an authorative source or the American Cancer Society as a "liberal advocacy group.JQ 19:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * While I can understand your exasperation, JQ - we've all been there - and while I think you're seriously overestimating your edits, Chido, when you call them "solid...relevant and properly sourced", shall we try to find some common ground?
 * First, though, thanks to MastCell for doing Chido's dirty work for him. Very kind, sir. I'll use the link numbers from his post to comment.
 * 55 - "cherry picked" is fine, IMHO - it is a direct quote from the report, although it's unfortunate all the links to it on google seem to be from FORCES-ilk websites. I disagree with the "Certain aspects..." component of the edit, though - it's classic weasel words in my book - a vague appeal to uncertainty without anything to back it up.
 * 56-58 - agree with MastCell, by and large. Nmg20 00:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I welcome any and all efforts to find common ground. I will research the Heartland Institute more carefully (I am not familiar with it -- believe it or not). The purpose of the HHS report was not to rubber stamp the EPA's methodology (as the article currently implies) and we need to deal with that. Suggestions are solicited. I also think the Davey Smith article is being used in a misleading fashion against Enstrom; it reads much more balanced than that. There was no "quote mining"; the selections came from the opening paragraph, and are the basis from which he writes...nothing misleading there. I will accept that the "polling data" are from Dick Carmona's assessment, but there is more raw data from Gallup (and a 2007 poll) that should be used. If not, it should be clearly tied to him, as he combines groups to his liking to make a point. I do want to thank those who took the time to at least try to judge the changes based on their merits. Chido6d 02:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll be incorporating some of the less controversial edits soon. I'm still waiting for suggestions on dealing with the misleading contribution regarding the HHS comments about the EPA report.
 * I also protest the accusation of "quote mining" the Davey Smith article "to further an unsupportable POV". Such an allegation reminds me of an editor who said that the Enstrom/Kabat study found something it did not, rather than attributing the specific observation to another individual's reanalysis.  Indeed, the editorial that accompanied the Enstrom/Kabat study was subtitled "More information is available, but the controversy still persists."  Professor Smith did, in fact, call the health risks associated with exposure to ETS "small" at least twice; this is not a quote out of context, as the entire article is consistent this perspective.  He even ends the article sounding unsure that exposure to ETS is even harmful, calling large sample sizes "a promising strategy if we really want to know whether passive smoking increases the risk of various diseases."
 * Look, I realize that everyone prefers that their own view be presented in the best possible light. This should not extend, though, to misusing sources in order to be purposely pejorative toward a view other than your own. Chido6d 03:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If we're going to go into depth on the editorial, then we should probably mention that it points out that Enstrom/Kabat analyzed the risk of COPD for men and women separately - a decision with no biological basis - and that their decision obscured a significant association between passive smoking and COPD. The editorialist also had significant criticisms of Enstrom/Kabat's methodology, and made a very pointed (for a BMJ editorial) comment that: "In the field of passive smoking the tobacco industry has eagerly discussed measurement error that would lead to the effect of passive smoking being overestimated, and it relies on the work of its consultants in this regard - while ignoring misclassification that would lead to underestimation of the strength of the association between environmental tobacco smoke and disease." The relevance of that statement to the work of Enstrom/Kabat is pretty obvious. My point is just that we shouldn't get into quoting the entire editorial, much less into presenting it as if it somehow questions the risks of passive smoking when that is not its point at all. Fortunately, the full text is freely available for anyone who wishes to read the entire thing; I think the context in which it's currently presented is accurate and appropriately succinct. MastCell Talk 18:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

People who have died from passive smoke
Most of the time, you can't prove that this person or that person died from passive smoke effects. You can say that five people living with tobacco smoke died when only three people died without it, but you can't really say which two of the first five were the tobacco cases and which three were the bad luck cases.

However, there are a few cases where's it's pretty much cut-and-dried. Abid Hanson -- who died because a flight attendant on Olympic Airways Flight 417 repeatedly demanded that he remain seated next to a bunch of smokers instead of moving to a less smoky part of the plane -- is one such case. If we can come up with a few more perfectly clear (and public) cases, do you think this information would be a useful addition to this article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I dunno... I suppose it's interesting, but the number of people whose death is so immediately and directly attributable to passive smoking is probably pretty small. It sounds like an extreme case. Also, not to sound cynical, but there will likely be an attempt to spin it into something like, "Only one death has ever been attributed to passive smoking..." MastCell Talk 03:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

POV project
I've decided to assemble a mass of information, probably in the form of a table, documenting the inaccuracies and violations of WP:NPOV of this article. Since I've found (and exposed) several flagrant abuses, I'm certain that there is much more. The article will be analyzed line by line, and the sources will be carefully read and checked for accuracy. To my knowledge, this has never been done in an orderly way. This project will take some time, and will be a work in progress. If anyone wants to assist, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks. Chido6d (talk) 01:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I look forward to seeing these "flagrant abuses" which you once again completely fail to post here. Nmg20 (talk) 10:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish with this latest attempt to make an end run around the need to actually engage with us and reach consensus. You have been through every level of dispute resolution and have consistently not gotten the outcome you want. I don't think presenting the other editors of this page with a voluminous catalog of what you perceive to be our failings is going to be helpful. On the other hand, if you encounter areas where you believe sources are lacking or inappropriate, then as always, please bring them here for discussion. MastCell Talk 20:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * We had good examples of what Chido6d calls "inaccuracies and violations of WP:NPOV" during the mediation process. His complaints about such "inaccuracies and violations" actually sound like a broken record. But, when challenged to give precise examples of his claimed "inaccuracies and violations", these boiled down to be dead ducks. The alternative formulations he proposed were at best identical, and often less precise, more awkward and more POV than the phrases, sentences, paragraphs which he challenged and proposed to replace. The end result of the exercise: a lot of time wasted by many editors, time that would have been better used making real improvements to the article.
 * --Dessources (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

All hail the mediation process where JQ suddenly withdrew without notice (putting an artificial end to it), and the arbitration process that never began due, in part, to one administrator's failure to even recognize the issues in dispute (whether or not the issues had merit). I would not deign to perceive something like this as a victory, but any of you may feel free to do so. The continuous lack of understanding is sometimes amusing, and at other times it is troubling and approaches the bizzare. For example, why would I already post what I so clearly said was a work in progress? The work will post here for discussion. How in the world is this an "attempt to make an end run" around the need to engage others? Is it too much to ask for people to at least be forthright and honest? Chido6d (talk) 03:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * When you've brought real, concrete concerns here, you've gotten a good-faith response - a much more generous response than your constant accusations, attacks, and soapboxing warrant. The end to the mediation process was not artificial, but inevitable, given your inability to restrain your accusations, rhetoric, and agenda. You can blame other editors, the mediation process, the arbitration committee, etc for the problems you've encountered, or you can accept that some aspects of your approach to Wikipedia are deeply and fundamentally inappropriate and problematic. MastCell Talk 05:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The end to the mediation process was artificial. While the case was ongoing, we were at least engaged in civil dialogue.  A couple of people seem to be jumping up and down and snickering that the bullying has somehow "proven" that any claims about bias in the article are baseless.  It means no such thing; it does mean that a few activists are sticking together, and in one sense I respect that.  There have been a greater number of editors (or potential editors) who have found this article in violation (though some have been misguided and crass); nearly all of them seem to soon consider it a lost cause and lose interest due to your actions.
 * I'm just amazed at how I am not only sometimes misunderstood, but other editors have often responded indicating the opposite of what I clearly said. This remains puzzling, and one would begin to wonder if it is deliberate. I nearly hope that it is (though neither scenario is good).
 * I wish you would point out how any accusations, rhetoric, etc. coming from me are any different or worse than those that have been directed at me. At least I don't put negative comments about you on others' talk pages. You have said everything about me that I have said about you, and others have gone even farther.
 * If you wish, you may also take this opportunity to list the diffs proving your accusation about the 3RR rule. You may also list specific reasons why the link to the Scientific Integrity Institute is not suitable. Please explain how it does not qualify according to Wikipedia policy.  This is an honest question.
 * Chido6d 02:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

POV tag
There is an attempt to suppress the inclusion of a link from the Scientific Integrity Institute which appears completely baseless. Not only this; there is also a collaboration among editors to undermine the WP:3RR rule, and possibly an effort to draw me into the same violation.

One cannot make an edit or a revert per another editor. This means that you are acting as another's agent, by his/her authorization or direction, or on his/her behalf.

There is no reason to suppress the link from the Scientific Integrity Institute. A baseless, phony excuse was given implying duplication; at the same time, the link to the former Surgeon General's report is included while it is cited in the article at least 15 times.

Without question, I will continue to be accused of failing to cite specific examples of the violation of WP:NPOV. But false accusations are completely irrelevant, as long as they are false. Chido6d (talk) 03:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You are being shunned until you are able to discuss your concerns without the type of language and accusations employed above. MastCell Talk 05:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * When I noted that my was "per MastCell", it meant simply that he had already explained why the link you added was inappropriate, not that I was acting as his agent or any of the other accusatory nonsense you suggest above. The 3RR is designed to stop a single editor making changes to an article which fly in the face of consensus: as such, I'd say it was working really pretty well in this instance. Nmg20 (talk) 08:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

scientifically correct phrasing and Npov wording
I have integrated these changes, in order to make the article less biased, please make any objections here. replaces:
 * Current scientific evidence shows that exposure to secondhand tobacco is linked with an increase in smoking related illness, such as cancer
 * Current scientific evidence shows that exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke causes death, disease, and disability

Replacing the subject with a less controversial issue this would be liek saying that This would be TRUE obviously, yet the causative nature due to accidents is of a subjective statistical importance, which is what the debate is all about. This is hypish and missleading, and not NPOV wikipedia level wording.
 * "current scientific evidence shows that flying in a modern air line causes injury and premature death".

Moreover, This kind of wording is scientifically false, since the researches are of a nature of statistical correlation. Not a causative nature. -- Procrastinating@ talk2me 22:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you should read the article more closely (I note that your edit summaries say you jumped in after "a few minutes" and your claim that the sentence in question is not supported in the text - try using "Find" on your browser). As regards causative mechanisms, "Like mainstream smoke, Sidestream smoke contains more than 4000 chemicals, including 69 known carcinogens such as formaldehyde, lead, arsenic, benzene, and radioactive polonium 210" and "Tobacco smoke exposure has immediate and substantial effects on blood and blood vessels in a way that increases the risk of a heart attack, particularly in people already at risk" as regards the conclusions of authoritative sources on causality. "The governments of 151 nations have signed and ratified the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which states that "Parties recognize that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability"JQ 23:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Moving forward
The great majority of editorial effort in the past few months has gone into dealing with fringe POV editors who seek to relitigate issues that are settled in the authoritative literature on which we must rely. I suggest that we should stop wasting time on this, and routinely revert any future edits of this kind with a reference to WP:Fringe, and no further discussion.

Looking forward, let's get back to improving the article. I'd suggest an explicit section on the causal mechanisms at work here, starting the obvious point that sidestream smoke is similar to mainstream smoke and can be expected to have the same, well-verified effects. We have this at present, but buried deep in the article. Also, the various adverse effects dealt with in a single sentence could usefully be expanded.JQ 01:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that there are already safeguards in place to prevent and/or inhibit vandalism, edit warring, and the like. In fact, a few editors are quite successful yet at putting a gag on their opponents by exploiting and undermining these existing policies.
 * People will always come in as newbies who do not understand the process, and of course there will always be vandalism. It is important to deal with each as appropriate, with maturity and common sense.
 * Your proposal sounds dangerously close to creating your own pseudo-policy; if so, it is vetoed and will be reported if employed in any way that violates the policies, procedures and pillars on which this site is built. Chido6d 01:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please keep this thread on-topic. It is about improving the article, not a place for you to continue your baseless accusations against other editors.
 * Perhaps we could model the adverse effects section on tobacco smoking to provide some continuity between the two articles? Even a table, if sufficient data exists, comparing between the two - so lung cancer could appear in both 'smoking' and 'passive smoking' columns with relevant studies cited +/- effect sizes? Nmg20 09:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I must agree with Nmg20; it certainly is a baseless allegation to assume that, without exception, any editor who disagrees with JQ is some kind of fringe lunatic who is only trying to disrupt. I'm surprised you were so hard on your buddy.
 * Regarding article improvement, I support both ideas above. For the first, consider including a threshold analysis/comparison if possible.  The table sounds interesting as well, as it could/should include at least some raw data. Chido6d (talk) 04:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The table idea is great. I'd favor looking for comparable measures, probably derived from published meta-analyses.JQ (talk) 04:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good, though I'm not sure why you prefer meta analyses.
 * I also favor adding a section called "The effect of ETS on indoor air quality" or something to that effect. Chido6d (talk) 02:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

BMJ reference re: Helena, Montana
Reading the above, um, discussion, I am extremely hesitant to point out a problem with the source this article cites. While second-hand smoke is mentioned in the paper, the authors note that:

Researchers have predicted that smoke-free laws would be associated with a reduced incidence of acute myocardial infarction through a combination of reduced exposure to secondhand smoke and encouraging smokers to quit11 (38% of the patients with acute myocardial infarction in the study were current smokers, 29% were former smokers, and 33% had never smoked at the time of admission). While both of these effects are probably occurring, we do not have a large enough sample size to estimate their relative contribution to our results.

So I fail to see how this paper can jive with the in-article claim that "There is some evidence that reducing exposure to tobacco smoke cuts the risk of heart attack." Perhaps a better citation for this claim is the one found in the paper: Law M, Morris J,Wald N. Environmental tobacco smoke exposure and ischaemic heart disease: an evaluation of the evidence. BMJ 1997;315:973-80.?

I'll also quickly note that some of the numbers given in the "long term effects" section are difficult to reconcile with other sections. Example: 53,000 dead people per year in the USA because of second-hand smoke, while "EPA lawsuit" says 3,000 lung cancers per year. Are the extra 50,000 coming from heart-attacks? I'd also suggest that relative risk factors could be grounded in the absolute; if a 30% increase in risk for a non-smoker takes one from some tiny fraction (0.003, a number I pulled from the lung cancer article?) to a slightly larger tiny fraction, that is something that could be mentioned. (Or not! What the hell do I know about this?  I just stumbled onto this thing by accident ...)  mdf 21:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding the first point, the Wikipedia article states that "reducing exposure to tobacco smoke cuts the risk of heart attack." The cited reference does back this up, but the uncertainty in the quoted paragraph regards whether the risk reduction is due to a decrease in passive smoke exposure or due to a decrease in active smoking (smokers quitting because of the ban). Either way, it's "reduced exposure to tobacco smoke". However, that's a bit pedantic, and I see your point. Maybe we should make it clearer that the authors of the article were unable to tell whether their findings were due specifically to decreased secondhand smoke or due to more general effects of the smoking ban.
 * Absolute numbers and risk reductions would be useful - we just have to dig them up. Without looking at the source, the 53,000 probably makes sense - heart attacks are much more common than lung cancer among non-smokers, so with similar increases in relative risk, the absolute number of heart attacks may well be 50,000 to only 3,000 lung cancers. But I'll have to look back at the sources. MastCell Talk 04:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Pair of articles in Skin & Allergy News
I think the pair of articles in Skin & Allergy News (see Is the public health message on secondhand smoke based on science? Two brief analyses of the 2006 U.S. Surgeon General's report on ETS) is not eligible for inclusion in the Other Links section. First, the title of the debate is already misleading and gives the impression that there still is a true debate on whether the health message on secondhand smoke is based on science, while this has been established for a long time and is only debated by the denialists. The pair of articles and the way they are presented are, in themselves, highly POV. (I would neverthless agree that it be considered for inclusion as a reference, but in a context where its true significance would be explained.) Furthermore, the pair of articles belongs to the category of "balanced debates" of the type "5-minutes-to-Hitler-5-minutes-to-the Jews", i.e. it attempts to create a sense of balance where this is no longer appropriate. Such an approach of pretending a balanced stand in an area where the issues are already well settled, is in itself a way of re-invigorating the denialists' views. Finally, the author of the first article, Dr. Arnett, presents himself as an adjunct scholar of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, with no relationship with the tobacco industry. However, he fails to mention that this institute is on the record of having very close ties with the tobacco industry and has been the recipient of very significant sums of money from tobacco corporations, notably RJR and Philip Morris, as a brief perusal of the industry documents reveals (for a small sample, see, , , etc. (this is the result of a five-minute search).

--Dessources (talk) 18:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There are definitely some major red flags here. Describing oneself as an adjunct scholar at the CEI and in the same breath denying any relationship with the tobacco industry makes me question the accuracy and utility of the newspaper's disclosure policy. Also, this paper bills itself as "The Leading Independent Newspaper for Medical, Surgical, and Aesthetic Dermatology". An odd place, one might think, to find the science of passive smoking being debated. This goes back to Dessources' point above about this no longer being a real scientific debate (of which there would presumably be evidence in more topical (NPI) sources), but more a manufactured "point-counterpoint" sort of thing in a dermatology newsletter. MastCell Talk 19:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That said, I agree somewhat with Yilloslime's comments in his edit summary - these articles are somewhat representative of arguments employed by both "sides", so perhaps there is a place for them somewhere in the article. MastCell Talk 19:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't really care enough to protest. I think it is informative because Arnett's piece is a great example of the kind of argument put forth by the passsive smoking denialists, and it is then taken apart in the rebuttal by Tutuer. It would be great Tutuer had also discussed CEI's connection to the industry, but even lacking that I don't see including the exchange as misleading. If it were the only external link, or if the article didn't have a section on the industry generated "controversy" I could see how including it could be misleading or introduce POV, but in the full context of the article that we do have, I'm not concerned about readers thinking that the exchange is typical or that controversy is real. Mastcell's points about the reliability of the source are troubling, however.Yilloslime (t) 19:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Whether Chido's link and the Legacy Docs dug up by Desources end up here is one thing, but they are certainly relevant to the CEI article, and I have taken a stab at incorporating them there.Yilloslime (t) 01:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well done! Dessources (talk) 00:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)