User talk:Dessources

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


The scientific debate will never be closed[edit]

The scientific debate will never be closed - ever! Everything is and IMO should be debatable. People will debate the science of this forever. I could debate that the earth is an orange, the sun is a banana, and the moon is a pineapple. My opinion may be wacky and crazy, but I still can debate it. No debate on an issue is ever closed. (Anonymous)

In the absolute, you are right. But in that case, the statement applies across the board to all wikipedia articles which make scientific statements of one sort or another about the state of things. For example, under Earth, there should be a mention that it is still debated whether the earth is round, as there are indeed people (e.g. the members of the Flat Earth Society) who deny this fact. Under Apollo 7, there should be an mention that the question as to whether man set foot on the moon is still debated, as there are people who truly believe that the Apollo 7 mission was an American hoax, made by manipulation of televised images. Concerning the link between the 9/11 attacks and Al-Qaeda, one could indeed add a sentence saying that this link is still debated, as this is challenged by proponents of various conspiracy theories. And so on, and so forth, ad nauseum... This would lead to a quite tedious and boring repetition of virtually the same "debate is not closed" statement in thousands of entries. I am not sure Wikipedia users would appreciate it.
This shows that saying that the debate is not closed, in the absolute sense you mean (indicated by the use of the word "never"), even if this is completely right, carries strictly no information, since we are saying something which is obvious and goes without saying. Therefore, when we take the pain of specifically mentioning that the debate is not closed, we mean something else, something very different, something that is interpreted as a statement that carries particular information. This means that the scientific issue, in the current state of knowledge, is still not yet settled, that there still are unbiased arguments on both sides, and that an overwhelming consensus has not been reached. It means that even if one side may have more arguments or more convincing ones than the other, there are still valid arguments that plead for the other point of view.
The passive smoking question, as a scientific argument, no longer fulfills this criterion. The scientific debate concerning whether passive smoking is harmful to human health is now considered as closed by all the independent health experts and the public health authorities of the world. There is not a single dissenting voice among them: the consensus is overwhelming. E.g. USA vs. Philip Morris et al. Final Opinion, p. 1229:
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.
Of course, people may still disagree about some specific aspects, such as whether breast cancer should be included or not in the list of known risks. But there is not a single scientist who is not grossly biased who would claim that passive smoking is harmless. The only people to make such claims are either closely linked to the tobacco industry, or have a hidden agenda, such as libertarians whose aim is to protect the "freedom" to smoke at all cost.
I do not advocate that the existence of denial of the toxicity of passive smoking should be ignored or suppressed. My proposal is that it should be treated in the same way as, for example, the Consipray Theories in the September 11, 2001 attacks article. Actually, the Passive smoking entry comes close to such a treatment.
Dessources 12:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Sir Richard Doll[edit]

Any chance you can respond to my queries detailed on the discussion page of the Richard Doll article?

Timclarke85

Filters & passive smoking[edit]

Thanks for your message. I appreciate what you're saying about the dangers of passive smoke being dependent on temperature - but they aren't solely dependent on it. The paper I linked from the talk page make it quite clear that, while the filters are a tobacco-company con (and I agree the practical benefit they provide is extremely limited), it is nonetheless the case that they reduce inhaled toxins. In brief, the filter is cellulose acetate, and its fibres collect tar particles during inhalation (See: Kozlowski et al. Maximum yields might improve public health--if filter vents were banned: a lesson from the history of vented filters. Tob Control. 2006 Jun;15(3):262-6. PMID 16728759). Some filters also include activated charcoal, which remove gas phase smoke constituents. In addition, the vents serve to reduce the temperature of the smoke-producing part of the cigarette - which links in to what you were saying about the different chemical composition of the smoke at lower temperatures. Please, take the time to read the paper I've linked to - you are not correct to say that filters don't provide a benefit, and it does the article no favours to remove information from it. Nmg20 21:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Nmg20, you for your explanation. I read the paper by Kozlowski et al. with great interest. It appears to me that their observations and conclusions relate only very remotely, if at all, to the results contained in the paper by Schick and Glantz (See: Schick S, Glantz S. "Philip Morris toxicological experiments with fresh sidestream smoke: more toxic than mainstream smoke." Tob Control. 2005 14(6):396-404. PMID 16319363). The paper by Kozlowski et al. looks at the effect of vents on filter cigarettes. They recommend that vents be banned, and, at the same time, that maximum tar, nicotine and CO yields be be reduced, so as to lower the desirability of cigarettes. Very interesting, but quite far from a comparison of sidestream smoke and mainstream smoke, which is the purpose of the paper by Schick and Glantz.
The biological experiments described in the Schick and Glantz paper had as their goal to compare sidestream smoke with mainstream smoke. For that purpose, the comparison was made between strictly identical quantities of smoke of each type. The authors concluded that the research had shown that "sidestream condensate is 2–6 times more tumourigenic per gram than mainstream condensate. By inhalation, whole fresh sidestream smoke is 2–6 times more toxic per gram TPM than mainstream smoke, depending on the end point." The experiments used unfiltered cigarettes. So the result had nothing to do with filter. This is why the comment about the filter as a possible explanation of the result is inappropriate. Actually, if filtered cigarettes had been used instead, the results might have exhibited a much greater difference, as is stated by Schick and Glantz:
The cigarette used in these studies, the University of Kentucky 2R1 standard reference cigarette, is a high tar, unfiltered cigarette designed to model the cigarettes popular within the 1950s. The advantages of the 2R1 cigarette are that it does not change over time or from market to market. There is evidence that the sidestream smoke from the filtered ‘‘light’’ cigarettes that now constitute the majority of market is significantly more toxic, per gram and per cigarette, than that from ‘‘full-flavor’’ cigarettes similar to the 2R1. Thus, the results of the INBIFO work in the 1980s may underestimate the toxicity of modern sidestream smoke.
Dessources 00:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

User confirmation[edit]

Thanks - I have my suspicions on that lot as well, and I think it's sensible to have it looked into. They also all seem to share the same utter inability to understand what Wikipedia guidelines require of them to enable them to make changes to an article... Nmg20 23:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Good detective work, there, Dessources! Christ, it annoys me that I've wasted so much time responding to that clown. But well done for unmasking the sock puppets. Nmg20 10:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I think our friend is back as User:AcetylcholineAgonist - in fact, I'm 95% sure of it given that User:BlowingSmoke's ban expired today. Your support on the passive smoking article would be appreciated - I am heartily sick of this particular troll. Nmg20 16:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow... nice find[edit]

I really have to commend you for this, and for digging up this source, which provides some useful context for the discussion at Talk:Passive smoking. That collection of tobacco-company documents is a gift that just keeps on giving... MastCell Talk 02:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for the compliment. Indeed the collection of tobacco-company documents in the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library is a treasure trove for information on this subject.
--Dessources 14:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I found them very useful while working on the Steven Milloy article. Nice work on passive smoking. MastCell Talk 15:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, thanks for adding a high-quality source (the WHO report on industry subversion) to the passive smoking page. I'm consistently impressed with the quality of sources you bring to those articles. MastCell Talk 23:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

A compliment is always appreciated. I should like to return it to you, as I am also impressed by the amount of work you produce to keep improving the quality and scope of this article, in a context where a few individuals (sometimes I wonder whether it's not just one who appears under various identities) create a highly hostile atmosphere by perpetually coming back with contributions which have all the characteristics of the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics.
--Dessources 09:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
It appears we are headed to mediation, so I thought I'd ask you to join as you've been very active in the development of this article and are involved in the current editing dispute. The page is at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Passive smoking - please stop by and let us know if you'd be interested in participating. MastCell Talk 22:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Persistence[edit]

Interesting that British American Tobacco is still clinging to the canard that "many epidemiologists" find relative risks <2 questionable. Especially since the industry's own documents indicate that they were unable to persuade any independent epidemiologists to sign on to that particular tactic. I guess old habits die hard. MastCell Talk 17:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Following your observation, I have added a comment on the Talk page which raises this issue, indirectly quoting (via Judge Gladys Kessler) the document you are referring to.
--Dessources 20:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. I've responded on my talk page. MastCell Talk 22:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

International Society of the Built Environment[edit]

I'm collecting sources to open articles on the society and perhaps its journal, Indoor and Built Environment. Since you expressed an interest, feel free to take a look at User:MastCell/To-do list. At the bottom is a list of articles I'm considering creating, and I'm compiling sources. Feel free to add any that you think would be useful. I like to collect the sources before starting the article, so that the article is encyclopedic from the start. MastCell Talk 17:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration[edit]

I have made a request for arbitration regarding the passive smoking article. You are listed as a party in this request. Thanks. Chido6d 04:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


Hong Kong edit on smoking ban page[edit]

May I ask why my Hong Kong edit was removed? In what way was the source unreliable, and how was the survey biased? It was conducted by a respected academic institution in Hong Kong.

Timclarke85 21:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Any chance of an answer?

Timclarke85 01:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no reference of this survey on the Hong Kong Polytechnic University site. In the absence of an actual real source, an indirect reporting in China Daily of a claim made by the Hong Kong Catering Industry Association (HKCIA) cannot be considered as a reliable source.
--Dessources 20:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Page number[edit]

When you add any new information with a book reference, always provide the page number. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Why?[edit]

May I ask why revision 255401650 was undone, last by you? The statements were absolutely factual (contrary to the wording of my first edit) with references to the Wikipedia page where applicable and to publicised reports and books from academic and governmental institutions. As these two edits touch unpopular sides of the opinion as promoted in the page, deletion without stating the reasoning must be expected and indeed has happened a few times, giving the impression of requiring conformism of opinion. 123.255.28.73 (talk) 14:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

From the talk page I can see that you are easy in classifying other people's edits as not NPOV ("I have deleted the section. If someone insists to have it anyway, it will have to be completely redesigned to meet the NPOV rule." 23 March 2008), although your "Reference to denialist's position in summary" d.d. 3 February 2008 on the talk page makes your own dogmatic partiality very clear (condensed but practically literally: "I think that there is no "controversy" possible but if someone comes with anything controversial anyway, then that is always and exclusively generated by the tobacco industry"). Consider my question as to be satisfactorily answered. 123.255.61.105 (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Passive smoking NPOV Tags[edit]

I stumbled across the Passive smoking article and I've noticed the edit warring over the POV tag. I have not edited the article, but I left a comment on the talk page regarding the tag. If you remove it again it will be the 3rd time, and because it is not vandalism, that would be inappropriate. If you continue to have concerns over the tag, I suggest the article is in need of mediation. Shadowjams (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Please note that this article is subjected to repeated attacks by anons and SPAs, which do not constitute a real disptute. My fourth revert was clearly the removal of an edit done by an new anon, which I identified as vandalism (I checked the Talk page of the IP). Reading the 3RR ruled, I concluded (before doing the edit) that this was an acceptable edit. If you think I was wrong, please explain.
--Dessources (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

About your proposed deletion of Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-1998[edit]

Well, the article seems to be a fork of Passive smoking#Enstrom_and_Kabat, but the actual reason behind it is that I only translated the lead of the Japanese edition. If you recruit an excellent Japanese-language and English-language user to complete the translation, then you'll know the fact that the article is not just a fork of another article; it deals with a highly problematic research paper.--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Breast changes[edit]

Yes looks much better many thanks for improving the images. :-) Sorry about the harsh words a while ago. I do agree that we are both here to improve Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem. We finally solved our difference of views to our mutual satisfaction, and I sensed too that this difference was more a matter of form than substance.
Dessources (talk) 23:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate jokes[edit]

I'm sure I don't have to explain why jokes about sodomizing women, etc. are inappropriate on Wikipedia. I trust it won't be repeated. Kaldari (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please do explain, with reference to policy. That is, when it doesn't violate CIV and it's relevant (not to make any reference to the merits of the joke on the Pregnancy page). I genuinely interested in this. BeCritical__Talk 23:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, please explain. You own subjective bias is not sufficient ground for deleting my contribution to a Talk page. Please explain which precise rule of Wikipedia you apply to censor this joke, which actually does contain a message pertinent to the discussion. Furthermore, I am simply exercising something which is a fundamental value of democratic societies - my freedom of expression. This is a discussion page, where editors express their views, exercising their freedom of expression. You may find what I wrote crude or of bad taste - you were warned - but you have no right to censor it. Furthermore, the words are used are words that you hear on television, and the context in which I place them - an examination of a patient in a psychiatric hospital - deprive them of any pornographic connotation.
Dessources (talk) 10:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
The policy that it appears to violate is [1] "Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal. Be positive: Article talk pages should be used to discuss ways to improve an article; not to criticize, pick apart, or vent about the current status of an article or its subject. This is especially true on the talk pages ofbiographies of living people. However, if you feel something is wrong, but are not sure how to fix it, then by all means feel free to draw attention to this and ask for suggestions from others." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I have asked for other opinion here [2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
When I said that the joke is not completedly unrelated to the current discussion, this was a euphemism. I think the joke captures very well the essence of the discussion with some contributors, such as Ludwigs2, and is indeed closely related to the issue they raise. Your observation actually applies to the entire discussion, and you have intervened several time to try to refocus it. Your RfC was not meant at all to be a discussion on whether Image 2 is offensive or not, but somehow the RfC has been hijacked by people who have used it to attack Image 2 and the depiction of nudity in Wikipedia. And here again, my bad taste joke characterizes the discussion quite well. It has to be taken tongue in cheek. Finally, okay, I might be told that my contribution is off topic. Is this sufficient ground to delete it? Dessources (talk) 10:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
So, in fact, you were using the joke to explicitly suggest that I am some sort of sexually-obsessed delusional psychotic, in clear violation of wp:CIV. it was a grossly inappropriate post, and your efforts to redefine it as 'someone had objections' is simply pouring rosewater on a pile of shit. and yes, you can take 'pile of shit' as a euphemism. --Ludwigs2 14:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I did not "explicitly suggest" (an oxymoron!) anything about what you are. But the fact that you took my joke at face may indeed suggest that sense of humour is not be your strong point!
Dessources (talk) 00:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes I agree that the discussion has descended into bickering over nudity which is unfortunate ( and reflects badly on the project ). I however do not think the "joke" is the best way to get this across. I am concerned that accusations of "misogyny" may be leveled and this too could reflect badly on the project. Per the guideline off topic discuss may be removed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of not opening an unnecessary new front, I have removed the joke from the Pregnancy talk page.Dessources (talk) 15:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Rose water. --Ludwigs2 15:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The policy your edit violates is WP:RD2:

Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material that has little/no encyclopedic or project value and/or violates our Biographies of living people policy. This includes slurs, smears, and grossly offensive material of little or no encyclopedic value, but not mere factual statements, and not "ordinary" incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations. When attack pages or pages with grossly improper titles are deleted, the page names may also be removed from the delete and page move logs.

Just leave the page dude, even the admins are losing it. I got out of there a long time ago, because there's nothing constructive to do till someone dares to close the RfC. BeCritical 00:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'll do just as you say. Dessources (talk) 00:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom mention[edit]

I have used diffs of your posts in an arbcom request filed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Controversial_images.2C_NOTCENSORED.2C_and_Foundation_principles.

You are not listed as a party, and I have only used the diffs as examples of particular discursive moves. This notice is purely for your own information. --Ludwigs2 03:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

December 2011[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not include unsupported or inaccurate statements. Whenever you add possibly controversial statements about a living person to an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to Talk:Passive smoking, you must include proper sources. If you don't know how to cite a source, you may want to read Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for guidelines. Thank you. SummerPhD (talk) 01:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

This was perhaps not clear enough, but I started my comment by referring to the French Wikipedia article on Philippe Even. All the facts I indicate in my comment are simply translated from this article, which is well sourced. I have nevertheless edited the comment to tone it down.
Dessources (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)