Talk:Stanton Glantz: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 17:19, 12 February 2014 editMastCell (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators43,155 edits →NPOV: if you'd like to actually put something into glantz's biography, then you need something beyond your personal contempt; like, say, reliable sources ← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:55, 12 February 2014 edit undoFergusM1970 (talk \| contribs)4,665 edits →NPOV Next edit →
Line 51:		Line 51:
	:I agree that this article is NPOV, verging on hagiography. It totally ignores the many controversies surrounding Glantz's claims and "research," and glosses over the fact that he doesn't have any sort of medical qualification. Qualified people in the tobacco control industry are often skeptical or dismissive of Glantz for exactly this reason.--]<sup>]</sup> 14:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)		:I agree that this article is NPOV, verging on hagiography. It totally ignores the many controversies surrounding Glantz's claims and "research," and glosses over the fact that he doesn't have any sort of medical qualification. Qualified people in the tobacco control industry are often skeptical or dismissive of Glantz for exactly this reason.--]<sup>]</sup> 14:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
	::Glantz holds a professorship in medicine at UCSF, one of the best academic medical centers in the world. And he was elected to the ]—the most reputable and prestigious expert medical body in the US. Short of the Nobel Prize, election to the IOM is one of the highest honors an American medical researcher can attain. In that light, your contention that he has "no medical qualifications" seems sort of silly. I understand from your use of scare quotes that you have contempt for Glantz's research. But if you'd like to demonstrate that Glantz's work is viewed skeptically by the scientific community, you'll need to provide better sources than the '']'', which despite its bland title is a political rag with no scientific credibility and an editorial position somewhere to the right of John Birch. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)		::Glantz holds a professorship in medicine at UCSF, one of the best academic medical centers in the world. And he was elected to the ]—the most reputable and prestigious expert medical body in the US. Short of the Nobel Prize, election to the IOM is one of the highest honors an American medical researcher can attain. In that light, your contention that he has "no medical qualifications" seems sort of silly. I understand from your use of scare quotes that you have contempt for Glantz's research. But if you'd like to demonstrate that Glantz's work is viewed skeptically by the scientific community, you'll need to provide better sources than the '']'', which despite its bland title is a political rag with no scientific credibility and an editorial position somewhere to the right of John Birch. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
			:::Remind me again, where did he get his medical degree? He's a single-issue hack who is now blatantly misrepresenting research to push an agenda. How do you get longitudinal data from a cross-sectional study? Answer: You can't, unless you're Stan the Glans, in which case you just have to assert it loudly.--]<sup>]</sup> 18:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:55, 12 February 2014

Biography: Science and Academia Start‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Sources needed

Please research Misplaced Pages policies and bring the article into compliance. Thanks. Chido6d 04:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This article reads like it was written by Glantz himself. Phrases such as "battle for nonsmokers' rights" are certainly not neutral. Nor is writing: "Consistent with what would be expected from the biology of secondhand smoke, he demonstrated a large and rapid reduction..." neutral. In fact, this study's results and methodology have been the subject of much scrutiny. The list goes on and on: "efforts to coopt the hospitality industry", "working to end use of movies to promote tobacco", etc. In short, this article is an NPOV disaster. 68.190.119.234 (talk) 04:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

{{sofixit}}. MastCell 17:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem with this line:"Professor Stanton A. Glantz has been a leading researcher and activist in the nonsmokers' rights movement since 1978, when he helped lead a state initiative campaign to enact a nonsmokers' rights law by popular vote (defeated by the tobacco industry)."..... The Tobacco industry does not defeat an initiative petition, the VOTERS do.98.110.162.252 (talk) 06:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Stanton Glantz co-authored a book in the 1980's that instructed people how to get anti-tobacco laws passed without voter approval. More on this later. Chido6d (talk) 04:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

For some reason (besides me being followed, which is just plain creepy), there is a small but tight-knit group of extremists who refuse to allow Stanton Glantz to be described as an anti-tobacco activist. Reliable sources call him an anti-tobacco activist; this is his life, and he may have even described himself this way (I am looking into it). Since there are some who wish this page to be a commercial instead of an honest biography, the neutrality of the article is in dispute. Chido6d (talk) 04:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, a couple of things:

It's probably not best practice to slap a tag on an article before making any effort to address your concerns on the talk page. The tag is intended as a last resort, not a first salvo.
Please take a look at WP:COATRACK and WP:BLP. It's generally not a good idea to import a personal agenda into a biographical article.
Sourcing requirements are also a bit stricter in biographical articles, for both ethical and legal reasons, and WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well. What that means, in practice, is that you probably shouldn't run around suggesting that people encourage the subversion of democracy without at least some sort of reliable source. Your history precedes you. It's one thing to turn Talk:Passive smoking into a soapbox, but I think you'll find your ceaseless advocacy accorded less tolerance on a biographical article.

As to the actual content issue: the article states that Glantz advocates policies to reduce smoking. It does so in its second sentence, which is fairly prominent. I don't think there's any dispute about that. The concern is that your text presents a strident and negatively framed descriptor of his work. I would prefer a more neutral and encyclopedic description. MastCell 07:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The descriptor was removed twice for no reason, and since your history precedes you, the tag is (unfortunately) necessary.

Stanton Glantz is referred to as an "anti-tobacco activist" in or by

Science Magazine
The Washington Post
PBS (Public Broadcasting System)
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation
PLoS Medicine (a peer-reviewed journal)
The Online Archive of California
Reach MD
The New Scientist
Oncology Times
And many, many more.

In most cases, he is primarily and foremost described as an anti-tobacco activist.

Please explain in detail how the description is the importation of a personal agenda. You should know well about agendas...so let's hear.Chido6d (talk) 07:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It's fine to prominently describe his activism; we're talking about the wording that should be used to do so. It would be useful to provide some of these sources - Science, the Washington Post, PLoS Medicine, or PBS would be a good start - because, among other things, they'll help improve the article. I agree its current state is suboptimal and more like a resume than an encyclopedic article. I think our respective contribution histories speak for themselves regarding agendas, so I'll leave things there. MastCell 00:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The wording "anti-tobacco activist" (direct quote) is used in all of the above sources. My condolences if you find it to be a strident and negatively framed descriptor of his work. Contribution histories...with all due respect (quite sincerely), I suppose you have more time on your hands than I. We'll have to find some way to work it in. If you need to see more from the sources first, I can work on that. Chido6d (talk) 04:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Chido6d's list is selective. Actually, the term "anti-tobacco" is loaded and is generally used by the tobacco industry to designate people engaged in smoking prevention and tobacco control (when they don't say "anti-smoker"!). The usual term is now "tobacco control". Furthermore, you will find many good sources which describe Stanton Glantz as a "long time tobacco control advocate". I think the term "advocate" is more appropriate and more neutral. As both terms are used prominently in the second sentence, I would concur with MastCell that this provides a fairly neutral and accurate description of prof. Glantz. Going further would leave the NPOV territory.

--Dessources (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The list is not selective, it is fairly long and broad. Again, there is a manufactured and ficticious argument against using the term "anti-tobacco". When I have time to do so, I will (along with the edit) link with two reliable sources that use the term exactly. You can add more if you wish. Chido6d (talk) 02:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

What's the difference between "anti-tobacco" and "tobacco control". Both terms are used to describe someone whose aim is to stop the use of tobacco in all its forms. It's a bit like saying "collateral damage" when its the same as "human causalities", both mean the death of innocent victims. 79.70.75.90 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this article is NPOV, verging on hagiography. It totally ignores the many controversies surrounding Glantz's claims and "research," and glosses over the fact that he doesn't have any sort of medical qualification. Qualified people in the tobacco control industry are often skeptical or dismissive of Glantz for exactly this reason.--FergusM1970 14:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Glantz holds a professorship in medicine at UCSF, one of the best academic medical centers in the world. And he was elected to the Institute of Medicine—the most reputable and prestigious expert medical body in the US. Short of the Nobel Prize, election to the IOM is one of the highest honors an American medical researcher can attain. In that light, your contention that he has "no medical qualifications" seems sort of silly. I understand from your use of scare quotes that you have contempt for Glantz's research. But if you'd like to demonstrate that Glantz's work is viewed skeptically by the scientific community, you'll need to provide better sources than the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, which despite its bland title is a political rag with no scientific credibility and an editorial position somewhere to the right of John Birch. MastCell 17:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Remind me again, where did he get his medical degree? He's a single-issue hack who is now blatantly misrepresenting research to push an agenda. How do you get longitudinal data from a cross-sectional study? Answer: You can't, unless you're Stan the Glans, in which case you just have to assert it loudly.--FergusM1970 18:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Categories: