Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Passive smoking/starting points

Beginning
Please keep answers brief, as we can explore all the individual details after getting the ground established.

I understand this is largely a dispute about including information from specific sources. Is that correct or incorrect?
 * The main point of dispute is how to handle information about passive smoking from sources funded by the tobacco industry.JQ 03:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thats most of it. I would add publication bias but that is a lesser issue. Mickeyklein 16:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, plus WP:WEIGHT. There's currently a well-documented scientific consensus on the effects of passive smoking. The question is how to handle prior controversy on the issue, how much weight to give individual older/outdated studies (now that the debate has been settled) compared to the weight of reliable secondary sources, and how to address older sources that were funded by the tobacco industry (in light of reliable sources indicating much of this information is unacceptably biased). MastCell Talk 19:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is correct. I see this primarily as a WP:WEIGHT issue.Yilloslime 20:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. The main issues are suppressing information from reliable sources (whether funded by the tobacco industry or not) that are inharmonious with certain points of view, and the deliberate discrediting of sources (within the article text) to that same end. Suppressed material includes (but is not limited to) profound statements about passive smoking from the World Health Organization.  The WHO is widely sourced elsewhere in the article, but only if the information supports a particular point of view. Chido6d 02:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Very reliable and authoritative sources indicate that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that passive smoking causes disease, disability and death. This is being agressively challenged by two of the editors involved in this mediation, who appear to be using this Wikipedia article as a forum for re-opening past and settled debates, and giving undue weight to past episodes in which the tobacco industry has been able to inject controversy into the field using methods which are now identified and have been qualified as fraudulent by a US federal court. I agree that the issue is principally WP:WEIGHT, but against a background that is characterized by constant breaches of the WP:CIVIL, WP:GOODFAITH, WP:NPA rules of conduct. Dessources 10:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

What are the general points being made that are in dispute? Please be as brief as possible.
 * All relevant scientific organizations and public health bodies say passive smoking causes lung cancer and other health problems, and that scientific research supports this conclusion. Sources funded by the tobacco industry have denied this. The dispute is over how much weight to accord to these views, and how heavily we should qualify the information we report from tobacco industry sourcesJQ 03:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There is little active debate about the effects of passive smoking; the disputed edits seek to give undue weight (in my opinion) to individual primary sources (outdated journal articles) and individual dissenters, to use primary sources to "debunk" the scientific consensus, and to rehash settled arguments as if they were current. MastCell Talk 19:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur with JQ and MastCell.Yilloslime 20:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * While there is, indeed, general scientific agreement that passive smoke is harmful, there is an obvious refusal to fairly document the opposing view. The article states (rightly) that there is general scientific agreement, but any and all documentation of the opposing view is met with deliberate and relentless attempts to discredit, vilify, downplay and debunk the same.  This appears to be in violation of the NPOV policy of Wikipedia.  Concerning ad hominem exclusions and the controversial nature of this issue, allow me to quote Richard Smith, the Editor of the British Medical Journal.  Less than four years ago he said, "We've considered again whether we should have a blanket policy of refusing to publish research funded by the tobacco industry. We've twice considered this question in the BMJ and twice decided against. The BMJ is passionately antitobacco, but we are also passionately prodebate and proscience. A ban would be antiscience...We must be interested in whether passive smoking kills, and the question has not been definitively answered." Chido6d 03:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The editors who insist of documenting the "opposing view" seem to want to create the impression that the subject is still controversial and that there are two sides in an alleged current scientific debate. If their view is accepted, this would mislead the reader's of Wikipedia with a distorted view of the subject. Indeed, judge Gladys Kessler, in her landmark judgment (see Final Opinion) provides a detailed account of how the scientific community has reached a consensus concerning the health effects of exposure to secondhand smoke (pages 11215-1230), and arrives at the following conclusion: "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." I also agree with MastCell, and should like to add that most of the dissenters contributions are in the form of pronouncements and peremptory statements not backed by any source. Dessources 10:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weight and reliability of evidence. Primacy of government endorsed scientific conclusions. Mickeyklein 15:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Are the sources in dispute reliable or not? Please be very brief. We can address reasons shortly.
 * The sources in dispute are verifiable, but subject to clear conflicts of interest, and presenting views rejected by all relevant scientific organizations and authoritative bodies . In my view, these problems should be pointed outJQ 03:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The sources are verifiable and appear to be conducted in good scientific faith. The tobacco funded studies do not violate any historic scientific norms and come to significant conclusions. Their results do, however, conflict with the view of government sponsored health organizations but I believe this has less to do with an authoritative ruling on science but a regulatory goal.


 * The Tobacco control movement has smoking bans as one of its primary goals and is integrally related with the government in achieving this goal. The science and the law go hand in hand. The government scientific body finds the "evidence" that passive smoking causes cancer, the Surgeon General reports, and the regulatory bodies vote for the smoking ban. This is a conflict of interest, as the governments are scientifically investigating phenomenon that they already intend to regulate.


 * The Tobacco companies also have their own conflict of interest as they are defending the product they are selling. It is natural that they would look for results that would make the smoking bans look silly. I would imagine they would also use their marketing resources to spread favorable data and rebut unfavorable results.


 * The fairest way to get around both of these conflicts of interests is to examine the sources by their adherence to scientific standards that were commonly accepted before the 1992 EPA study. This would allow both sides to examine the evidence without ex post facto changes in mathematical hypothesis testing that are indicative of manipulated and biased data. Mickeyklein 16:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure exactly which sources we're referring to. Mickeyklein has cited a number of primary sources (older journal articles), which I question because a) they're primary sources being used out of context and contrary to our reliable secondary sources, and b) there is reliably sourced evidence, which came to light after the publication of these articles, that many of these sources are biased or potentially inaccurate. We should absolutely not be in the business, on Wikipedia, of assigning our own editorial "weight" to studies based on their adherence to one or another set of guidelines, particularly outdated ones, which is what Mickeyklein is advocating above. That's what reliable secondary sources are for - to synthesize primary-source evidence. MastCell Talk 19:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If we cannot assign weight, how are we to proceed in determining whether an article has weight? Mickeyklein 01:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's actually quite simple. What do reliable secondary sources say? What weight has been assigned to the primary source evidence by experts in the field? MastCell Talk 02:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The sources used for the sections about dissent to the scientific consensus do appear to qualify as reliable sources, the bigger question is how much weight to accord to them, and also whether certain sources are being accurately summarized/paraphrased,etc. Yilloslime 20:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The sources are reliable. The real question is not about weight, but whether or not bias is responsible for creating a debate within the article itself.  The complaints about "undue weight" on this page should be sufficient to arouse suspicions about attempts to discredit reliable sources with one's own counterarguments.  The sources should stand on their own merits. Chido6d 03:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The sources on which the scientific consensus view is based are abundant and highly reliable (see references provided in and ). The problem is that those sources are challenged by the dissenters, who, on their side, have contributed virtually zero reliable sources. Dessources 11:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

What are the most important points of the dispute in relation to making the article improve, to you? Please do not comment on other editors. Focus on the content and policy considerations. These kind of things lead to an article that is biased and of "little or no" educational value, and is why we are here today. Chido6d 03:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Not allowing excessive weight to be given to views rejected by all relevant scientific organizations and authoritative bodies and promoted for commercial or ideological reasons.JQ 03:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A page displaying a sound scientific examination of the effects of passive smoking. Mickeyklein 16:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The article should reflect the current state of knowledge on passive smoking, as exemplified by reliable secondary sources, without giving undue weight to minority opinion or substituting our own idiosyncratic evaluation of the primary sources. The article should not "re-fight" the debate, but should characterize the various views in relation to their representation among experts in the field (per WP:WEIGHT). If few or no experts hold a given view, then it need not be set forth in detail. "Controversy" should not be expounded upon where none can be documented to exist. MastCell Talk 19:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * At the end of the day, I would like to see an article that accurately discribes the established scientific consensus on the health effects of passive smoking, details the history of passive smoking regulation & policy, and at least touches on the well documented attempts by the tobacco industry to subvert the the science and policy decisions around passive smoking. I also think it is important to represent the dissent to the scientific consensus that exists and has existed and discuss relevant controversies surrounding the science and government decision making, as long as these minority views are not given undue weight.Yilloslime 20:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * To truly be neutral, an article on such a controversial subject needs to be meticulous in its accuracy. It should state both sides of the argument fairly and let them stand on their own merits.  It is perfectly fine to document that there is a scientific general agreement; this does not mean that any opposing viewpoints should be deliberately and repeatedly discredited at length. For example, on this discussion page alone, one could observe the claims that:
 * Opposing viewpoints are funded by the tobacco industry (ad hominem argument)
 * There is a well documented scientific consensus (everyone else, be quiet)
 * Opposition is old and outdated (not true)
 * The debate has been settled (it hasn't)
 * The opposition is biased (not necessarily...another ad hominem argument)
 * Legitimate interpretaions are dismissed as "out of context". (POV)
 * There is emphasis that the opposing view is held by the minority. (this point is reiterated over and over again in the article)
 * "...most of the dissenters contributions are...not backed by any source", and "the dissenters...have contributed virtually zero reliable sources." (this charge, while absolutely false, is being made by the same individual who wanted a scientist to mediate this dispute)
 * I agree with JQ, MastCell and Yilloslime. The main article should reflect the current scientific consensus about the deleterious health effects of exposure to secondhand smoke, with perhaps some mention of areas which are still under discussion, such as the link between exposure to ETS and breast cancer, a brief mention of the attempts by the tobacco industry to subvert the science, and some very short reference to the controversies and minority view. If more of the latter is wanted, we could perhaps create a separate article that would focus on the historical development of the science on ETS, where we would document more amply how the tobacco industry has, over the last three decades, tried to subvert the science of ETS and where there would be more space for the current manifestations of this strategy by the tobacco industry and its front groups, and where other minority views on the subject could be given more space. Dessources 11:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)