Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Passive smoking/Premediation discussion

Outside view of Crockspot
I am uninvolved in this dispute, or with any of the disputants or articles. However, I had an opportunity to look into the edit histories of the related articles and users, and have determined that there has been a history of sockpuppetry involved. I also believe that there is still sockpuppetry, including "straw man" sockpuppetry, afoot here, related in some way to this past case. I have compiled some evidence, and am still investigating, but I won't post it unless requested, as I am not sure if "outside views" are welcome in mediation, hence my posting here on the talk page. - Crockspot 21:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * ... Interesting. MastCell Talk 21:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I love to see the evidence, though I must admit that I'm mostly interested because I think you are talking about me. Forgive me if I am wrong. (Despite his hopefully honest mistake in saying that "I am uninvolved in this dispute, or with any of the disputants," Crockspot and I have recently butted heads over at Matt Drudge and Think tank.Yilloslime 01:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My mistake in overlooking the Drudge thing. I have to admit ignorance on the substance of the edits, but from just looking at edit histories of users and articles, 71.72.217.102 seems to be a probable sock of someone involved. But with "straw man" socks, the substance of the edits can be misleading. I don't really know for sure who, I just smell socks. - Crockspot 19:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * so it's not me, huh? You seemed pretty sure it was on your talk page. Why not just be up front about it? I'll note that yesterday you also accused 24.7.91.244 of sockpuppetry, though you seem to have recanted. Is this is common strategy of your's when you clash with a new editor? I also think it's a little out of line to nominate for deletion the essay on policy shopping immediately after User:Eleemosynary quoted it to you on my talk page, and then not even give him/her the courtesy of a message noting the nomination Yilloslime 19:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not that it's relevant here, but I used WP:TWINKLE to file that Mfd, and it automatically notified the appropriate editors. I've had an issue with that essay for much longer than Eleemosynary has been on my radar screen. It's amazing that two incidents within two days constitutes a "history". I am very careful about not making outright accusations. If I have suspicions, it is not improper for me to express them. If you want to see a real "history" of sock accusations that are unfounded, and are recanted in a less than sincere way, perhaps you should examine Eleemosynary's edit history. - Crockspot 20:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Also just curious: If it wasn't the "Drudge thing" that got you interested in this RfM, then what is it? Seems like a fairly big coincidence that the day after you and I have our first run in, you "just happen" to weigh in this page, claiming to be "uninvolved in this dispute, or with any of the disputants or articles"....Yilloslime 19:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's curious that you appeared to track a couple of articles from my edit history just to revert me. Don't flatter yourself too much. My edit history is broad and deep, and I often happen onto things tangentially. We are veering way off topic here, so if you have more to discuss about this matter, take it up on my talk page. As I said on your talk page, sock hunting is an inexact science, and often what appears to be well supported by evidence turns out to be just a coincidence. - Crockspot 20:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's break it up, or move it elsewhere, as this does not appear directly related to the RfM in question. MastCell Talk 20:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Crockpot, thanks a lot for researching, I don't know the formal procedures for outside evidence but worst comes to worst you can always post it on my talk page and I'll introduce it. Thanks again! Mickeyklein 17:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think my IP is listed above...if not, it's very a close number. But I'm not a sock, or whatever you call it.  I have never contributed under any other identity. Chido6d 22:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Adding editor
I've added User:Chido6d to the mediation list, since s/he is quite vocal and involved in the article. MastCell Talk 04:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think User:Dessources should also be added to the mediation, as an editor who's been highly active on this article over its entire development and is currently involved in the editing dispute. MastCell Talk 22:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * We find outselves in 100% agreement on something at last! Chido6d 22:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't be surprised if we agree on a lot of things. So far, though, passive smoking hasn't been one of them. MastCell Talk 02:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Addition of Ad Hominem Exclusion of Evidence
I have added ad hominem exclusion of evidence to the subjects of mediation because I believe that most of the rational for excluding pro tobacco evidence is the semantically illogical ad hominem argument that the substantive findings of tobacco funded research are invalid because they were found with tobacco funds.

I further assert this exclusion has been beyond the substance of the tobacco funded findings and rests nearly entirely on the person of the argument. Mickeyklein 20:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

So what happens now?
Is anyone familiar with this process? Does someone from Wikipedia come into this talk page and try to help us iron something out? I suggest that a Wikipedia administrator read the article's talk page to get an idea of the nature of the dispute. Chido6d 22:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, now that we "bit" on mediation, the case becomes active, a mediator will sign up, and you can get started on the "official fight to assert scientific integrity over advocacy". Basically, the best idea is just to watchlist this page (using the "watch" tab up at the top) and check it over the next few days - the Mediation Committee will let us know what comes next. MastCell Talk 04:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment about the "suppression" of the IARC/WHO study conclusion
I'd like to contribute the following comment about one of the points which have been raised in this 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 23:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 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 on the article talk page 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". 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?
 * This discussion and debate does not rise to the level of the use of Holy Scripture. I respectfully ask that you refrain from invoking the words of Jesus Christ our Lord.  Thanking you in advance. Chido6d 23:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Compromise proposal in good faith
Here is my proposal. Basically it consolidates the criticism and debunking to a section at the end of the minority piece, unless such criticsm is directly related to the individual or study being discussed. The article may stay “as is” except as follows: Please give your thoughts. Chido6d 00:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The introductory paragraph to “Criticism of the Scientific Majority View” will be nearly eliminated. (This information will be moved to a “disclaimer” type paragraph at the end of the section).
 * The “Critique” section will contain quotes and information from Gio Batta Gori/the Cato institute, John Bailar and other closely related information. It will be brief as there is no license to run amuck.
 * The “World Health Organization” section will contain the full conclusion of the abstract, a synopsis of the media articles, and the record of the WHO’s own defense (including Don’t Let Them Fool You). It will also contain the claim that the study was out for peer review at the time, and the summary of the accompanying editorial (critical of the media).  If there is mention of the article in the Lancet, it should specifically state that the tobacco companies monitored the study while it was in progress, planned to discredit any findings that might damage their economic interests, and helped break the story to the media.
 * The Osteen section will be shortened.
 * The Enstrom/Kabat section will also be shortened. It will add that the study was originally funded by cancer research funds, but finished with tobacco industry funds.  The criticism of the study will remain (nearly intact).
 * The “Current State” section will be replaced with something to the effect of “Response of the Scientific Majority”. This section would include:
 * Allegations of tobacco industry funding (including Barnes and Bero)
 * That the scientific community has reached “consensus” (with supporting source and quote)
 * A concise summary of the “sound science” project and why it apparently failed
 * The “Tobacco Industry Response” section would be deleted, as nearly all   of this information would then be redundant.


 * Perhaps you should move this proposal to the article's Talk page. This Premediation discussion section is not the best place, as other editors may feel like I do, that we are now at the next stage of the mediation process, and no longer in premediation. I therefore do not expect this page to change and I usually do not consult it.
 * --Dessources 00:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I would suggest creating the actual section so we can look at it in toto. You can cut and paste the current section into a subpage (e.g. Talk:Passive smoking/Controversy draft where we can work on it. MastCell Talk 03:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm still "working" on the draft, but it is at the link above. At this stage, I would appreciate review and comment here rather than edits to the draft.Chido6d 11:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, I did mention this on the main talk page to point you here, but I wanted to restrict involvement to those who are truly interested.Chido6d 11:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oops, I commented on the draft page (but I didn't edit the draft itself, don't worry). MastCell Talk 16:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * MastCell, thanks for your constructive feedback. I highly suspect (though I have absolutely no proof at this point) that PM -- for various reasons -- did not bother agressively defending the (Kessler) case.  I did include her sweeping quote on "consensus" as highly relevant, though I deleted the Bradley incident in the interest of brevity and because it stood alone (it did not directly tie).  If we need to add this back in for good cause, I don't think it belongs in this section.  But I could do more research into the mysteries of the defendant's actions (or inaction) if needed.Chido6d 19:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you have any sourced info on why PM didn't mount a stronger defense on the scientific side, I'd be interested to hear it. Given the industry's long-standing approach of sowing doubt on the epidemiology and scientific rigor of passive smoking research (cf Osteen decision), it's puzzling that they didn't pursue such a strategy in the PM case. My suspicion is that they were unable to line up more or more credible expert witnesses. I think the testimony should be included as relevant, though it could certainly be shortened and the quote from Kessler removed. But no hurry. MastCell Talk 20:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm interested in finding out as well. I doubt your suspicion (with all respect); there are just too many witnesses out there (in spite of the "consensus", we agree that money talks), and the Bradley guy just sounds like a kook.  So at this point it's a mystery.  The important thing is that if it is included, no interpretation, sway or bias is communicated while documenting the facts of the case.  We can't imply that this is the only guy they could find, or the only one willing to come forward, because we just don't know.  All we could say (right now) is that he was called, and determined not credible.  Considering his extreme views, I don't think that's very surprising.  I realize what you suspect -- and it might be true -- but there's no evidence of that to my knowledge.  My suspicion is (from the other side of the aisle) that PM expected the verdict from Judge Kessler (I'm sure they had loads of information) and feared that an agressive defense would lead to an even more damning judgment.Chido6d 21:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, but I don't buy that they would be treated more harshly for mounting a robust defense, assuming of course that they did not violate legal or ethical precepts in mounting that defense. Regardless, facts are: the industry presented one expert witness to dispute the scientific consensus on the harms of passive smoking, and that witness was deemed "not credible" by the judge. We could agree on that much, I'm sure. I'm curious at the characterization of Bradley as a "kook" with extreme views, since he seemed to be espousing essentially the same ideas as Gori, and ideas that we've heard invoked on the article talk page. MastCell Talk 22:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Gori mused about a "safe" cigarette; Bradley (from what I've heard) thought they were safe (or close to it) as is. Quite a difference.
 * I confess to knowing very little about the case, and will research it as time allows.
 * Based on my knowledge of the justice system (in the U.S), I would not eliminate punitive consequences for merely aggravating the judge. I say that with much regret.
 * I would appreciate knowing what you would like to do (as an edit) -- how you would like the wording, and where you would like it to be placed. I'd also appreciate you putting it here until we get more feedback.  Things went quiet around here for the time being.Chido6d 20:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)