User talk:Conzar

About Me
I have a masters and a bachelors in computer engineering. I have been trained to critically think and analysis information.

Arbitration enforcement
Arbitration enforcement request re Vaxxed. Guy (Help!) 07:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks User:JzG, looking forward to the result.Conzar (talk) 12:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * User:JzG Propaganda is an interesting term. Did the tobacco industry use propaganda and continue to use propaganda in order to sell their products? Do you forget what the tobacco industry has done or just plainly ignore it and think its a one-off.  That it isn't happening again.  Just wondering what your thoughts would have been during the 1950's.  If you spoke out against tobacco, what would people say? Conzar (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * See my reply below. The anti-vaxers are promoting the idea that lack of correlation does not imply lack of causation. This is precisely analogous to the tobacco industry's tactics, and those of creationists, climate change deniers, anti-GMO activists and so on. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Its again interesting that you bring up other subjects as evidence to support your claims about . I really have no idea why you bring up anti-GMO or what that means.  You very much like to label people.  I'm not sure this is the best practice as humans and groups have a wide range of beliefs and interests.  For instance, the New Zealand Government does not allow GMO foods to be cultivated on New Zealand soil.  Would you label the New Zealand Government as Anti-GMO and categorize them with beliefs such as creationism?  Antarctic New Zealand devotes a lot of money and research into climate change.  So you certainly couldn't claim that New Zealand was a climate change denier. Conzar (talk) 02:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I am merely making the point that the anti-vaxers and their nonsense over autism is a case of déjà moo: we have heard this bull before. You mentioned tobacco. I pointed out that the relevance of the tobacco industry playbook is the opposite of what you assert, and noted other examples. It is the anti-vaxers, not "big pharma", who are trying to maintain doubt in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence. There is no conspiracy, Wakefield and Thompson are simply wrong. Guy (Help!) 07:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I am unable to discuss the censored topic so I will leave it there. I would like to mention that you placing labels on people in general is unhealthy.  Using labels as some form of evidence for lack of intellect is disingenuous.  I would highly recommend that you analyse how you talk about people and groups of people. Conzar (talk) 07:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * These cencors are crooks WndJo (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * As I stated above, using labels is inappropriate. Controlling Information is critical to maintaining an empire.Conzar (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * On the other hand they use labels like "disgraced", "pseudoscience", "science-deniers" etc: you know their crib-sheets. This is why they use labels: to get attention, to assert, to trick attention too. Whereas other side is banned to use labels: and thus it's difficult when labels are banned. For instance, if you see that some calumnies are used against a person or a subject, how can you demonstrate that without longish explanations what is true and what is not true? (and "this is not true" or, which is technically the same "this is a lie" would be called as label too). Minitrue is taking over. WndJo (talk) 12:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
– EdJohnston (talk) 17:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Note that this will include through the connection you made by attempting to use it as a source in  (and because it is one of the more prominent sources of anti-vaccine propaganda). Guy (Help!) 19:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Vaccination
I am very familiar with the tobacco industry playbook. I have also seen it used by the climate change denialists and anti-GMO fanatics. The tobacco industry playbook is relevant here: as scientific consensus became firmer around the link between tobacco and fatal diseases, the industry worked to promote the "debate". In the same way, science has by now established (using exactly the same kinds of studies that confirmed the link between tobacco and cancer) that vaccines do not cause autism. A small group of people with a vested interest in the vaccine-autism link, are fighting a rearguard action against the scientific consensus, because their reputations and livelihood depend on it. This group includes a number of quacks (chelationists, struck-off doctors like Wakefield and Geier and so on) and a number of hangers-on, mainly serial cranks and conspiracy loons like Mike Adams. The closest analogue of Vaxxed would be something like Edward R. Murrow's documentaries on tobacco, which promoted the "debate" and "uncertainty". Murrow died of lung cancer. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Isn't there a magnitude of difference between the Tobacco industry (billions of dollars) and the anti-vaccination group (maybe thousands of dollars)? What is the major monitory incentive for anti-vaccination groups to fabricate information, I am talking end goal here?  Are they trying to sell some alternative product to replace vaccines?  As far as I am aware, they promote a healthy life style.  Have a good organic diet without toxins and harmful foods such as SUGAR, dairy, and meat.  Where is the industry level incentive?  As for the vaccination industry, do they have an incentive to fabricate information?  Are they an industry similar to Tobacco in terms of monetary resources and government influence.  You do accept that Tobacco heavily influenced government policy right (and still is doing so today - look at the court battle in Australia over plain packaging)? Conzar (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I am also interested in why the USA setup a court and has awarded over $3 billion to victims of vaccination injury. Are those people fraudsters? Conzar (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Just trying to be helpful here. WP:NPOV is defined in such a way as to ensure that content cannot be simultaneously technically accurate and deceptive. For example, consider the following two sentences:
 * Professor Y finally got his long-overdue comeuppance when he was stripped of his tenure and fired by a board of his peers for stealing money from the university's pocket and lying through his teeth in published papers.
 * Professor Y was eventually stripped of tenure and terminated by a review board of his fellow educators for misappropriation of university funds and the falsification of data in his published papers.
 * The former, while technically true is obviously written with the goal of biasing the reader against Professor Y. The former is "clearly" the act of a depraved, selfish individual, while the latter might have exculpatory circumstances. Perhaps he was being blackmailed, and needed to acquire money without anyone finding out anything was wrong. Perhaps he was extremely careless with bookkeeping and handling of data. The latter allows for these possibilities, while the former does not.
 * But that's just one case. For another, consider the Flat Earth Society. They contend that the Earth really is flat, and not an oblate spheroid as science has shown us to be. So, at first glance, WP:NPOV might seen to suggest that we need to balance their claims against those of scientists in the article Earth. But that would be deceptive, wouldn't it? It takes more than a little bit of ignorance to believe the Earth is flat. There is no science being done to test the flatness of the earth, nor is there science being done which presupposes a flat earth.
 * The problem in the last example, as well as the subject you've been banned from editing, is one of due and undue weight. Where all of the reliable sources we can find say one thing, but a large minority of people believe another, it is highly deceptive to present that minority belief as being on par with the mainstream belief. In the case of vaccinations, there are an extremely small number of medical experts who believe that Wakefield was on to something, and what little science they have produced in support of this has been discredited, debunked or falsified. It is, to put it simply, not true that vaccines cause autism, and this can be shown through numerous reliable sources. Therefore, while Wikipedia does not exist for the purpose of debunking minority or fringe claims, Wikipedia must be written from the perspective that the anti-vaccine movement is wrong. I hope this helps.
 * Finally, I noticed you said you wanted to right something you saw as wrong. WP actually has guidelines for that, which you can read at WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Essentially, it says that you shouldn't edit with the goal of righting what is wrong, because WP is intended to be descriptive, not proscriptive. We can only describe the problems, not fix them. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  22:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Why is there a special court setup in the USA to pay vaccination injuries? Why have they awarded $3 billion to injured patients if the science is so clear that vaccines are safe?  Has the government setup a court intentionally to defraud the tax payer?  How do you explain this? Conzar (talk) 22:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe these were answered below, but in the interest of communications, I have provided some more succinct answers:
 * Why is there a special court setup in the USA to pay vaccination injuries?
 * There was a more legitimate concern than the autism link over a completely different vaccine back in the 1980's, and lawmakers responded to that.
 * Why have they awarded $3 billion to injured patients if the science is so clear that vaccines are safe?
 * Because their burden of proof for petitioners is so low (there are cases in which the plaintiff presented and claimed no scientific evidence whatsoever, and even cases where only the vaccine manufacturers had any evidence to support their case, yet the decision went with the petitioner).
 * Has the government setup a court intentionally to defraud the tax payer?
 * No.
 * How do you explain this?
 * Reactionary politics.
 * I hope this helps. There's no need to respond, I'm not trying to get you in trouble. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  13:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey
Can we chat a bit about what you are doing here in WP? Jytdog (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, what do you propose Conzar (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I have been watching you do stuff. How would you say it is going for you? Jytdog (talk) 21:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Obviously, my tactics have failed. Conzar (talk) 21:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah that seems to be the case. why do you think that is? Jytdog (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I should only have questioned specific information instead of making broad statements. The approach I was taking [here] seems to be better. Conzar (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

. Hm. Different tactics would have been more successful for sure. One always makes more progress here in small bites. I was happy to hear you mention "tactics". In business planning, folks talk about clarifying the mission, defining strategies to realize the mission, defining tactics to carry out the strategy, and then executing on those tactics. I wonder if you might be willing to talk through those more fundamental levels. Stepping way, way back... are you clear on why you are here - what your mission is, as an editor? If so and you want to tell me, would love to hear. Jytdog (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The initial reason for creating this account was to update the Nissan Leaf article. I am very interested in the Leaf and wanted to include additional information about that product.  Other than that, I haven't really considered editing articles until I came across the VAXXED movie.  It seemed to me that the article was written in a very biased way especially since at the time of the writing, no one had seen the movie.  I felt that articles written like this were typical of the mass amounts of propaganda that are fed to people through main stream media every day.  My goal, was to 'right' the 'wrong' and provide a more balanced page. As I never engaged in this before on WP, I didn't really have a planned out strategy from the beginning.  I think my mission as an editor is to ensure that claims are substantiated and that pages are not one sided especially on controversial subjects.  The tone of the vaccination articles are very clearly one sided.  If WP existed back in the 1950's, I would expect the same type of tone for those claiming Tobacco was harmful and caused cancer.  I still cannot comprehend how WP defines neutral point of view.  It seems to me that the system is setup to only accept main stream information and rejects other information as fringe.  Again, if this was the case back in the 1950's, Tobacco would be a completely 1 sided conversation.  Conzar (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah your contribs are interesting. A few edits 2014-16 and then blammo you hit the Vaxxed stuff.  So what I am hearing is that when you read the Vaxxed article, the part of you that is aware of our mission to provide the public with neutral articles really was alerted, and you wanted to fix that, and make it more neutral, as you see "neutral". I hear that.   And I hear what you are saying about "neutral" sorta kinda means mainstream in Wikipedia, and how it is hard to get there.  You put your finger right on the key issue. The NPOV policy is a key part of the community's strategy to realize the mission of providing the public with great articles, and wrapping your head around what that means here is essential.  I don't know if you have sat back, and thought about this whole crazy project and how all the policies and guidelines kind of fit together (or don't).  If you have I would love to hear your thoughts.  If you would like to hear mine, i'd be happy to share them.  But I am interested to hear how your take on how things should work, based on your understanding of the spirit of the policies and guidelines, with "everyone can edit" and all that.... Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I am interesting in learning about your opinions on how the guidelines and policies fit together. Honestly, I do not have enough knowledge to make an informed comment on the subject. Conzar (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This is going to sound cheesey, but I think the way that Wikipedia is put together is ... profound, and beautiful. You have to start with some basic assumptions:
 * You and me and everybody are radically, 100% equals. We are all dogs on the internet.
 * There is great respect for individual initiative here - nothing happens if people aren't WP:BOLD, and everybody here knows that.
 * At the same time, be aware that all the policies and guidelines were put in place by the community itself over the years, and that the most fundamental policy here is CONSENSUS, which includes all past consensus as expressed in the policies and guidelines. So make sure you are really, solidly grounded in that notion.  Before you hit 'save' in WIkipedia, check what you just wrote to make sure it is all in spirit of the policies and guidelines, aiming at the heart of them.  Not playing the edges to get what you want.  It is not about what you want.  Be aware that there is nothing new under the sun here - there is a precedent for almost everything - be ready to learn whatever that is.
 * So there is gorgeous tension, or balance perhaps, between respect for individual initiative and autonomy, and an awareness that other people are here too and yes they matter too.
 * The only thing that matters, is the kind of content you bring, and how you behave, here in Wikipedia. What matters, is if you are clueful and if not fully clueful, then willing to learn.
 * The way to get content to "stick" when you want to approach any bit of content in an article is:
 * Forget everything you already know
 * Go out and find the absolutely best sources you can find. The highest quality (per RS or MEDRS) - not  - the thing you happen to grab, or the thing that happens to agree with what you already think.  No - the best sources.    Meaning that nobody can look at your sources with askance.   Nobody who is sane, anyway.  So - bring secondary sources that are independent of the topic and created by really, really respected institutions; why would you ever waste your time with a crappy source anyway?
 * Read those sources and listen to them. Figure out what are the main ideas that are common to all of them - understand how the chorus of voices on any given topic is singing - where the melody is, where the disharmonies are - try to figure what "accepted knowledge" is (which may be "what we know, is that we don't know!") .  Figure out what the "minority views" are too.  Figure out what is beyond fringe, and just wrong or garbage.  listen to the sources
 * Remain clear in your mind what is accepted knowledge by the experts and what is uncertain (so much bullshit is thrown around by people who claim that things that are uncertain are actually certain, and vice versa.) Clarity and self awareness are so important - knowing what you know and what you don't know, knowing what a given field accepts as known, and what the field is not certain about) This bullet is what it means to learn.  It is delicious.
 * Figure out how to say those things in your own words, and write them down, citing sources as you go, and giving the most WEIGHT to what the best sources give WEIGHT to.
 * Thats it really. I rarely get reverted, because that is how I edit when I add content.  Impeccable sources, carefully summarized, neutrally.
 * If somebody disagrees with you, ask them why. really ask them. Try to get them to answer if they won't.  Listen to them!  Try to say what you think.  Make it an actual conversation as much as you can.   Be focused on the work and let interpersonal drama go.  Just always let it go. It is not about your ego or mine.  You and I are both people, but it is not about you or me.  It is about the work.  If you fuck up, you fuck up.  be able to hear that.
 * If somebody brings a crappy source and pushes and pushes, try to understand the person probably a) doesn't know what they are doing in Wikipedia, and b) is probably really passionate too. Know that they are kind of lost here. Try to help them, until ... you get sick of it. Then WP:SHUN them.  Wikipedia isn't therapy.
 * here is probably the hardest part of this whole thing. I come out of academia, and I love learning.  I have not been infected with the corrosive distrust that is really pervasive in the developed world today.  Sure I am aware of corruption etc but I believe that humanity has more "accepted knowledge" today than it ever had before, and that this knowledge is the product of our knowledge-producing institutions.   Those institutions are human creations and so they are shot through with faults,  just like you and I are, but they are creating knowledge.  So yes, the "highest quality sources" are going to be "mainstream" - in the field of medicine, they will be review articles published in super high quality journals like NEJM or statements by the pillars of the medical establishment like the Infectious Diseases Society of America.  If I want a deep, fair take on some news thing, I will read the NY Times and the WSJ and see what I can find in common.  I will never reach for a tabloid.   If you don't buy into that - if you cannot trust our knowledge producing institutions, then this place will be hell for you.  I am sorry about that.


 * When I edit with people who are clueful - who get all that -- it is fun.  And one of the things that make me happiest, is building things with good people.  I am happy a lot when I work in Wikipedia.


 * That's it. That was too much I know.  Jytdog (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you Jytdog for taking your time to discuss this information with me. I really appreciate this.  I will certainly be more careful with editing pages.  I think you are right about thoroughly researching topics and not just finding a single source that supports ones position.  Thank you! Conzar (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You are welcome! I wish you good luck here, I do.  if i can be helpful let me know. Jytdog (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Question
Conzar asked a question: "Why is there a special court setup in the USA to pay vaccination injuries? Why have they awarded $3 billion to injured patients if the science is so clear that vaccines are safe? Has the government setup a court intentionally to defraud the tax payer? How do you explain this? Conzar (talk) 22:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)" Is anybody going to answer this? Milligansuncle (talk) 23:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Not surprisingly, Wikipedia has an article about the Vaccine court, explaining its reasons for existing (based on its enacting documents and other WP:RS about it), etc. DMacks (talk) 01:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * DMacks Thank you for the link. So there is a special court in the USA in order to compensate people who were injured by vaccination.  The page implies that science cannot prove vaccines injure.  Is this a correct statement?  Why are there a long list of effects (known as side effects in the medical industry) that are included in the vaccination manuals?  I'm just very confused that a court can exist and pay out damages relating to vaccination injury if the science 'proves' vaccinations as safe and do not injure.  Conzar (talk) 01:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Conzar, I recommend that you cease this discussion. You can be blocked at any moment if you continue. EdJohnston (talk) 02:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * So someone else can come into my talk page and talk about (the word that I am apparently censored from saying)? Is that correct? Conzar (talk) 02:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * They are reminding you that you are violating your ban by continuing to discuss vaccination. EvergreenFir is not under ban from that topic, but you are. EdJohnston (talk) 02:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What is the point of users posting information about topics that I am banned from discussing? What is the point of a talk page?  Is it to discuss information with the person you are 'talking' to?  Sorry, I am new to talk and may not understand how this works.  Conzar (talk) 02:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like a continuation of a discussion started before you were tbanned? Or that someone else picked up even if you shouldn't have been participating even at the start. Being your talkpage, you're welcome to say "take this elsewhere" or "don't talk about this here" for any reason (including risk of personal temptation that might get you in trouble, or any other reason at all). Some editors don't mind when others continue discussions on their talkpage that had started but then no longer involves the talkpage's user itself, others prefer talkpages are restricted to direct interactions with the user. I agree that it's probably best that if this were to continue, it be elsewhere. And regardless, I have no real interest in continuing my own involvement either. DMacks (talk) 02:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that the burden of proof in the vaccine court is "fifty percent plus a feather", so setting a low bar to compensation if there is any effect even plausibly resulting from a vaccination. Many (most?) of the compensated cases lack any compelling evidence of causal effect and would fail if held to a more robust standard of proof. The court exists because capricious awards by juries threatened the very existence of vaccines - vaccine manufacture is not at all lucrative, whatever the "big pharma" rhetoric might say, and several companies were on the verge of pulling out of manufacture altogether. I recommend you read The Cutter Incident and also Autism's False Prophets. Guy (Help!) 07:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Conzar if I may -- nobody has a "right" to edit Wikipedia or to do anything here. Editing is privilege that is offered to all - this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit - but each person who accepts the offer agrees at the same time to abide by the community's policies and guidelines. That is in the Terms of Use of this place.   One of the things that the policies provide for, is that if someone behaves in a bad way and keeps doing it, they can get blocked (an overall loss of editing privileges} for some amount of time; they can also get "topic banned" from some topic, for some amount of time (a partial loss of privileges).  I myself am under a topic ban; it happens.  There are other kinds of bans too, like an interaction ban (I am under one of those too!)  These are losses of editing privileges.  They are part of the rules of the game here.

What you stumbled into with the Vaxxed article, was a special situation in Wikipedia that exists for some topics that are very controversial. There are about... twenty of these I think. (they are listed here) These topics are very controversial, and disputes got so ugly and entrenched that they ended up at our "supreme court", which we call the arbitration committee. As part of sorting out the specific dispute and disputants that landed at arbcom, the committee generally leaves enduring "sanctions" on the topic, because what was once controversial, tends to never stop being controversial. (As I mentioned way above, there is not much new under the sun here, and there is generally a precedent for everything). The topic of "vaccinations cause autism" is included in one of those ~20 topics. The very first dif on this page was created by Guy, here, and he gave you formal notice that these "discretionary sanctions" were in place with regard to the Vaxxed article.

I am guessing that you didn't really slow down to think about what that notice meant... but the intention of the notice is that a) you are made aware that the subject is controversial and b) you should be minding the content and behavioral policies/guidelines very carefully and c) you should be aware that if you violate the policies too much, you are liable to being brought to Arbitration Enforcement (AE), where you can face a block, a  topic  ban, or a site ban.  I think you didn't understand that notice, and went ahead as you were, and you kept violating the policies and guidelines.  And Guy brought the case to AE, and your behavior was judged there, and you were found to be disruptive (having violated the behavioral policies with no sign of stopping).  And so you were topic banned.

Now you have to live with that, if you want to remain part of the community. Some people never figure this place out, and they go "rogue" at the point where you are now, and generally make a nuisance of themselves by fighting against the topic ban, testing its limits constantly, or creating SOCK accounts, or whatever. They end up indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. Some of those folks still keep coming back - we have SOCK cases as long as your arm where you can see really obsessed people coming back over and over and over. It is really sad.

Anyway so that is the situation. I know you didn't understand what you were doing as you worked your way into this, but that is what you did. If I were you I would ask Ed how long the TBAN is for, and just steer very clear of the topic during that time (so yes, if other people talk about it here, you ignore them or ask them to take the discussion somewhere else), and when the time has come that you can appeal the TBAN, you can ask at that time, to get your privileges back. Folks will look at your behavior over that time to see if you have demonstrated that you understand things better and are likely to start behaving disruptively again or not, and they will decide to lift the ban, or not, based on that. That is how it works, if you want to stick around. I hope you take that route. Jytdog (talk) 03:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I will not discuss that topic here. Thank you for your explanation.  Conzar (talk) 07:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Talk about a kangaroo court! Wikipedia will go to any lengths to suppress concerns about vaccine safety. Milligansuncle (talk) 09:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

For information
See Sockpuppet investigations/Andy Dingley. 62.255.240.157 (talk) 11:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing this information. I am not surprised that  has accused my account as being a sock.  I initially wrongfully accused Guy's account as a sock due to my inexperience.  I have apologized.  He seems to be petty and isn't showing good faith in me especially after the discussions on this talk page.  Conzar (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry you are unhappy about that. As I noted at the SPI the behavior of the sock was very strange and there were only a couple of likely masters I could see; as i noted there the likelihood that it was you, was low.   An SPI itself is just an investigation; a question. The IP address posted here to stir up trouble and did not wish you well.   I do wish you well here and I am glad that the account was confirmed not to be you. Jytdog (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I apologize for showing bad faith to you (again) Conzar (talk) 20:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * :) Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Note on smoking, and our institutions
Have a look at: Conzar (talk) 01:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * this, then
 * this, and (note the timing of the surgeon general's report and the publication of the really killer 2nd epidemiological study) See this too which is informative on the role of the government in this.
 * if you have the patience, the first 5 or six minutes of this video, which shows you how embedded cigarettes had become in the culture and the shock that the surgeon general's statement in Jan 1964 created.
 * the really apt comparison is between the behavior of the tobacco industry and the oil industry; the medical establishment turned against cigarettes steadily through the mid to late 50s into the 60's culminating with that SG report in 1964, just like the scientific community became more clear and more united on climate change as evidence came in (it is interesting to read the series of WP articles starting with IPCC First Assessment Report and the subsequent ones - you can see the first from 1990 is somewhat tentative on human factors, and the 2nd from 1996 is much more confident, and they just get more confident from there. It took over 10 years (from IPCC 2) for the oil industry to finally start to yield and in some ways they haven't yet) Jytdog (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I find this particular re-enactment interesting and wonder what other industries might use the same tactics. Conzar (talk) 01:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I also find this quote to be of relevance: "The 1964 Surgeon General's report, which recognised smoking as a cause of lung cancer in men, is often regarded as a turning point in the recognition of health harms from smoking. But the Surgeon General's report was actually a kind of scientific anticlimax: from an evidentiary point of view the case against smoking had been closed by the end of the 1950s, and it was only the truculence and obstinacy of cigarette manufacturers that forced a blue-ribbon review by the federal government. Charles S Cameron, Medical and Scientific Director of the American Cancer Society, put the matter nicely in a 1956 overview for the Atlantic Monthly, noting that if the same level of evidence had been arrayed against, say, spinach, no one would have objected to the banning of that plant from the national diet."
 * Yep. The key thing I hope you are taking away from all that, is that the mainstream medico-scientific literature, which is what we rely on here in Wikipedia, is where the the story of the harms of smoking unfolded and consolidated.  It wasn't a fringey thing shouted about by discredited scientists. Jytdog (talk) 02:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you think that industries have learned what happened to tobacco and would try different tactics? Like the Sugar, meat, and other industries?  Conzar (talk) 02:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That is kind of a different story. The key thing i am hoping you take away is that the argument that the mainstream medical/scientific community was "in" on what the tobacco industry did, or that we wouldn't have clearly seen the consensus on harms of tobacco in the mainstream literature especially by the late 1950s and early 1960s is just hogwash.  That's all. Jytdog (talk) 02:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "As late as 1960 only one-third of all US doctors believed that the case against cigarettes had been established."


 * And there were certainly doctors and 'scientist' from the tobacco industry that generated 'science' to disassociate the link. Conzar (talk) 02:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * yes and there are lots of doctors even today who prescribe antibiotics for the flu, or who recommend arthroscopic knee surgery. I am not talking about what doctors do, but what the mainstream medical literature discusses.  The sources each of us have brought make it very clear that the literature was clear on the harms of tobacco, and somebody writing a WP article in the late 50s would have seen that in the highest quality sources.  As I wrote to you above, everything in WP depends on sources, and consistently bringing the highest quality sources is how we keep garbage out of Wikipedia.  Stuff produced by the tobacco industry would have been identified easily as fringe-y, non-mainstream, and maybe more importantly, as failing WP:INDY  - high quality sources are independent.  Jytdog (talk) 03:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * high quality sources are independent — w-h-a-t?  So yes, the "highest quality sources" are going to be "mainstream" - in the field of medicine, they will be review articles published in super high quality journals like NEJM or statements by the pillars of the medical establishment like the Infectious Diseases Society of America. If I want a deep, fair take on some news thing, I will read the NY Times and the WSJ and see what I can find in common.
 * what a pathetic appeal to authority, though… all right, let's we do the same: The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue, - Dr. Richard Horton, the current editor-in-chief of the Lancet WndJo (talk) 15:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * i am talking really narrowly about how we operate here in WP; how we use the scientific literature. You seem to be more talking about translating scientific knowledge into political action, which is an entirely different ball of wax, and something that we don't concern ourselves with here as we write about scientific or medical topics. (there are often articles on the controversies, but those are distinct from the articles on the actual science)  We understand very well that there are all kinds of real world issues at play, out there, but those are not our concern.  People who try to import those issues into wikipedia are... well, advocates.  :)  Jytdog (talk) 03:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)