Talk:Advancement of Sound Science Center

Unheaded stuff

I've had a go at cleaning this article up, removing various tendentious statements and material better placed in the article on Steven Milloy, while retaining the factual substance. If others think I've done a reasonable job (or no-one comments at all), I'll remove the cleanup tag.

82.43.213.28 13:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)This draws heavily on two 'hostile' articles, and the Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber article no longer has working links to their source material. It needs a lot more work before it can be considered as neutral in tone and of enyclopedic quality.

This article should properly be titled "The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition" or "Advancement of Sound Science Coalition." (Normally, we wouldn't include "the" in the title, but this group's preferred acronym is "TASSC." Since there is already an existing article for "The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition," this article should be merged with that one. --Sheldon Rampton 17:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

For additional reading on this topic, see: Heat, by George Monbiot, published by Allen Lane. An article excerpting the book was published in the British newspaper, The Guardian on September 19, 2006. It starts: The denial industry ... For years, a network of fake citizens' groups and bogus scientific bodies has been claiming that science of global warming is inconclusive. They set back action on climate change by a decade. But who funded them? Exxon's involvement is well known, but not the strange role of Big Tobacco. In the first of three extracts from his new book, George Monbiot tells a bizarre and shocking new story. Source: The Guardian, Tuesday September 19, 2006.

This Article does not meet the standards for neutrality

An objective look at the first sentence of this article is enough to call into question its neutrality.

“The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC) was an tobacco-industry-funded lobby group which promoted the idea that environmental science was "junk science", which should be replaced by "sound science" more favorable to corporate interests.”

The phrase “tobacco-industry funded” is an ad hominem attack. How this center is funded may be a fact (the links from the article sited to the supporting documents are broken) but the author fails to show that it has affected the output of this Center. He just considers it axiomatic that tobacco money equals false science. If the scientific criticism of the ETS (in this case) is valid what does the source of the money matter?

Second, the redefining of “sound science” away from its generally accepted meaning is a rhetorical device to win an argument before it even starts, not the neutral presentations of facts.

I am sorry if my formatting is weak. I am new to the talk page.

Dc6482 04:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Your formatting is fine, and thanks for commenting. I think the basic problem is that this article is poorly sourced in its current incarnation. Sources exist, and they're lumped together at the bottom, but specific assertions should be referenced more clearly. I also agree with you that the tone is not as neutral as it should be - in general, the article needs a lot of work. I've been meaning to get to work on it, but haven't gotten around to it yet. If you're interested, I'd encourage you to take a shot at editing the article to improve it. A word of advice - don't take it too hard if others change your edits around - it happens to all of us. Finally, about the "tobacco-industry-funded" issue, I think the issue is that TASSC was clearly listed as a "Philip Morris Tool" to influence legislative debates - its primary focus was not scientific, but political. That said, I agree with you that it may not need to be mentioned in the very first sentence as it's likely prejudicial. Finally, the link from the "References" section was working for me - I got the Philip Morris budget slides - but let's go through as I'm sure there are probably a few broken links in the article. MastCell 18:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I've just proposed a merge into The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition which is the correct title, I think. These problems could be addressed as part of the merge. JQ 03:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think a merge is definitely a good idea. MastCell 04:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I have additional concerns about a statement in the section Coopting the media, "This is the real "junk science",which should be replaced by "sound science"." This statement appears to be the opinion of the editor who wrote it. Other editors have tagged it for needing a citation, which it lacks, and for needing clarification. I think the statement's abundantly clear, but it's impermissible under WP:NPOV unless it can be attributed to a notable source of information on the subject. Otherwise, it's giving wikipedia's voice to that sentiment, and wikipedia itself has a neutral point of view on controversial topics. I'm deleting it under WP:BOLD, since two other editors have tagged it and no action's been taken. loupgarous (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Definitely NOT Neutral

Clearly needs more work. Not only is it not neutral but there are loads of errors. eg, cfis.org doesn't exist. Also, a lot of it seems to have been grabbed from here [1] and I have to wonder which was the chicken and which was the egg. If it's a straight theft from Sourcewatch, then it's probably copyright infringement, as well. Extramsg 08:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sourcewatch, like Wikipedia, is under the GNU license. And while it's worthwile to note that the cfis.org website is no longer active, that's not exactly a major error. As the article states, CFIS, like TASSC, is a shell organization operated by Milloy - the fact that he registered and used the cfis.org domain is verifiable.JQ 10:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is extremely biased. Consider this sentence:

"Milloy denounces research on environmental issues such as climate change, pollution and public health as junk science if it produced results suggesting a need for public intervention or regulation. He promoted the idea of sound science, interpreted in practice to mean science favorable to corporate interests."

That's nothing but dishonest anti-Milloy propaganda. Milloy does not denounce research for producing results suggesting a need for public intervention or regulation, he denounces research for lack of scientific rigor. In fact, in the example of DDT for disease vector control, he has consistently advocated more, rather than less, government intervention, to save lives in the third world.

Nor has Milloy ever suggested that sound science means science favorable to corporate interests. Rather, it is science which is reliable and trustworthy, which does not rely on dubious data or exaggerate statistical inference. NCdave 22:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Nor has Milloy ever suggested that sound science means science favorable to corporate interests. - no, he just takes money from them and then writes articles (and generally by distorting the truth) so as to advocate positions favorable to their bottom line. But of course there's no connection between the two. Raul654 22:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You can claim that it's "anti-Milloy propaganda" but the fact remains that it's a completely accurate description of his position. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 17:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Should "The" be part of the article title in this case?

I realize that "The" is usually omitted, but since the acronym is TASSC, shouldn't the "The" be included in the article title with a redirect from ASSC to TASSC instead of the other way around (as it currently is)? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

First sentence still needs work

Specifically where it says:

which promotes the idea that environmental science on issues including smoking, pesticides and global warming is "junk science"

Smoking does not seem to involve "environmental" science, IMO. Perhaps "mainstream" or "consensus" would be better? I'm struggling to find the most neutral word possible, and any suggestions would be appreciated. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Astroturf groups is up for deletion...

...if anyone cares, see the discussion here.Yilloslime (t) 03:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Verification of sources

This article currently has a tag hanging next to the statement that "Science advisors to TASSC included Fred Singer, Fred Seitz, Bruce Ames, Michael Fumento, Michael Gough of the Cato Institute and Patrick Michaels. Garrey Carruthers, former governor of New Mexico, served as chairman of TASSC". The editor who placed this tag, Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs), removed the sources that verify this information in the same edit in which he placed the tag. Specifically a link to TASCC's annual report[2] from 1997 was removed. On it's first page, the report lists Carruthers as president, and Ames, Fumento, and Fred Seitz as Advisory Board members. Later in the report, it notes that Gough was recently added to the board. He also removed the UCS link that verified that the other two--Singer and Michaels--were board members. The exxonsecrets link (removed by mark nutley) also noted that Singer and Michaels were board members. We may disagree about the appropriateness of using exxonsecrets and UCS as sources, but there can no be denying that TASCC's annual report is a WP:RS for info about TASSC. I therefore suggest that the tag be removed, Singer and Michaels be removed from the sentence, and the link to the TASSC annual report be reinistated. Basically, revert back to this version. It'd do it myself, but I don't want to be perceived as edit warring. At any rate, I think this is a reasonable compromise. Yilloslime ^T_C 23:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

1. The Union of Concerned Scientists book is not a reliable source; in fact, it qualifies as self-published.
2. As has been pointed out before, exxonsecrets is only reliable as a source for the opinions of Greenpeace. If any of those named, are living, it cannot be used here.
3. My removal of the legacy.library.ucsf.edu link was accidental; it was sandwiched between two clearly unreliable sources. However, reliability of the source needs to be established. UCSF has a general reputation for honesty, but we don't know who verified the documents, and no review process is clearly established that I can see. There were a number of forged documents presented as "evidence" in the tobacco trials, so we'd need to know who submitted the document, as well as what it claims.

So, I think I'd allow that, with a {{verify credibility}} tag restored to the site. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. I also found Carruthers on a "nearby" archived page, which may be a better reference than the annual report. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

We can agree to disagree on UCS and exxonsecrets: Whether or not Singer and Michaels are mentioned as former advisors in this article is a minor issue at best. But I'm not sure about this {{verify credibility}} tag. We're talking about a scanned copy of the organization's annual report here--it doesn't get much more reliable than that. You yourself admit that "UCSF has a general reputation for honesty" so unless there's the some good reason to believe this document is forged, the use of the tag seems a little tendentious. Yilloslime ^T_C 03:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The Legacy Documents Library is a collection of original documents related to the tobacco industry. It is a project of the University of California, San Francisco and is supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the University of California, and the National Cancer Institute. Without comment on any specific usage, it's as "reliable" an archive as you're going to find anywhere. I'm not aware that anyone has ever raised any concern or question about the authenticity of any of the documents in the Legacy Library, or about the Library's credibility. If such concerns have been raised, we could discuss them. If not, I don't see that we need to go down the road of questioning the Library's integrity. MastCell ^Talk 05:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. There are a number of bizarre collections hosted at reputable universities, where the reliability of the information is questionable. I'm glad that this is not one of them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Prod?

I removed the prod. This looks notable enough that deletion should go properly through AFD, if desired William M. Connolley (talk) 09:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

AFD`d

I have removed a lot of OR and unreliable sources from this article, there is no proof of notability and as such i have AFD`d it. mark nutley (talk) 10:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Seemed to be some severe BLP problems, which I removed wholesale. Article does not read neutrally. Should probably be rewritten if it's to be kept. Cool Hand Luke 16:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

CN Tags

There are a lot of cn tags on the article now for over a month. If the content is not going to be sourced then i`ll remove the uncited content mark nutley (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Some (or most) of it can be sourced, but since the article probably needs a rewrite from the ground up anyway, it would be fine to remove the tagged stuff. The article can be rebuilt with properly sourced material, which will be more productive than scrambling to source the stuff that's there now. MastCell ^Talk 20:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Cool, i`ve removed it. mark nutley (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes

[3] This is written in a totally non NPOV manner, and also uses primary sources as references, i intend to remove it again mark nutley (talk) 09:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

[4]I respectfully disagree that my recent improvements to this topic were non NPOV. Each sentence I added is footnoted to point to at least one source that supports it. Most of these sources are indisputable -- part of the public record at the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library at the University of California San Francisco as a consequence of the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement of 1998. One of the other two sources is an article from the "American Journal of Public Health", published by the American Public Health Association, and is hosted on the official website of the National Institute of Health. The second is the transcript of a WNYC / NPR interview with George Monbiot, a journalist who writes a weekly column for The Guardian, and the author of several books on current affairs. The information I've provided is purely factual, and it would be non NPOV to remove it. User:wikigaton (talk) 09:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the fact that the EPA report declaring secondhand smoke a "Group A human carcinogen" had (and has) no scientific basis needs to be noted, as well. If they were organized to oppose that declaration, it is an NPOV violation not to note that that declaration was bogus, whether or not a political payoff. (I'm not saying that second-hand smoke is not a health hazard, merely that it still has not been established as a carcinogen.) I'm not sure about the rest of the material that Wikigaton added, but Mark's comment about using (archived) primary sources needs further investigation. The archive is not a secondary source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"Despite being organized to support Philip Morris's corporate agenda" is an NPOV phrase not supported by the documents, and some of the other phrases you use are NPOV violations unless supported by reliable, secondary sources which are not opposing parties. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Has the EPA ever changed their position that secondhand smoke is a Class A carcinogen in the 18 years since they first made that determination? Do any more than a small numbers of scientists debate this? If these answers are no, then it would not be fair to remove that statement. But if there is still any credible scientific debate whether secondhand smoke is a Class A carcinogen, then I agree it would be fair to make note of it -- with as much or as little emphasis that it deserves, commensurate with the proportion of scientists who debate this classification (and certainly not much if the answers to the first two questions are no). If anyone has proof that the EPA has ever contradicted their determination of 1992 that secondhand smoke is a class A carcinogen, please supply it. As to your second point about whether the phrases I use are "reliable", my sources are better than "secondary" -- because of the landmark trial of the tobacco industry, we have now at our disposal at the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library the internal documents of the tobacco companies and public relations firms who created The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition. The primary sources I cite are the tobacco companies and public relations firms who indisputably prove in these very documents that they created TASSC themselves. And beyond describing TASSC's creation, these documents outline its purposes, specify its funding, set forth its strategies, and plan its expansion. The Legacy Tobacco Documents Library is simply the most definitive source of information about this topic that exists. Please have a look at it. Arguing it is not a credible source of information about TASSC is analogous to arguing Nixon's own words as recorded on the Watergate Tapes are not credible sources of information about the purposes and strategies Nixon discussed therein. I stand my the phrasing "Despite being organized to support Philip Morris's corporate agenda" in reference to TASSC, because the documents in the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library indisputably prove that this was the case. Here is just one example: APCO Associates "Proposed Plan for the Public Launching of TASSC" of September 1993, presented to Philip Morris (Bates no. 2024233709/3717). If that's not enough, here is another from Ellen Merlo, then the VP of Corporate Affairs at Philip Morris, written to William I Campbell on February 17, 1993 (Bates no. 2021183916/3930). — Wikigaton (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is saying it is not credible. just not usable as they are primary sources. Your edits were also not written in a neutral manner mark nutley (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Would someone please tell me the why the primary sources I cited are not usable? They certainly are credible. These sources were good enough to serve as evidence to the U.S. Department of Justice. And they were important enough historical records that they were archived by the American Legacy Foundation at the University of California at San Francisco, with funds from the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement. Certainly these documents are credible enough to serve as citations for wikipedia. If they are not, please provide some documentation that explains why. Additional question: You also removed the facts I supported with references to the article "Good Epidemiology: Tobacco, Lawyers, and Public Relations Firms" published in the American Journal of Public Health, and available on the website of the U.S. National Institute of Health. What was your justification? Is there anything "not usable" about that source? If not, you had no justification to remove them. Every last word I wrote is fully substantiated and impartial. In fact, I did not even state that secondhand smoke is a carcinogen, I stated that in 1992 the EPA published a determination that it is -- and I supported that with a link to the actual EPA document that made this assertion. There is nothing not factual, unsupported, or "not NPOV" about that. What justification is there for removing that?wikigaton (talk) 01:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC); edited again:wikigaton (talk) 03:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You can`t use primary sources, simple as that. I asked you a question on your talk page why have you not replied? mark nutley (talk) 07:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec: "You"=User:wikigaton)

It's not relevant whether the EPA "withdrew" the document; I found journal articles in 2002 and 2005 which state that it was still not established whether secondhand smoke is a carcinogen (noting, of course, that one cannot prove that something is not a carcinogen, as any respectable scientist should note). (I can't find any books which reference the finding which are not too partizan to be considered "reliable"; I don't know if the journal articles also may fall in that category.) I don't have access to sufficient journals to determine whether the EPA "finding" is given any scientific weight. (I also note that the EPA doesn't have any reason to revisit its finding, because the specific finding has no legal consequence, as "class A carcinogen" is a legal term used only in matters within environmental laws, and secondhand smoke does not fall within environmental laws.) If it isn't, or even if it's plausible that it isn't given scientific weight, then, even if it were established by secondary sources that TASSC was founded to contest that finding, then the fact that the finding is contested by reputable scientists should also be noted.

I have doubts about the American Journal of Public Health being reliable in this case, as NIH might want to support the EPA, regardless of scientific merit. All other sources are primary, and primary sources almost always require a secondary source to interpret them. See the (now redacted, but not deleted) discussion of court cases involving Christopher Langan, which I thought unequivocal, but Jimbo thought otherwise.

In other words, if TASSC was founded (in part) to contest that EPA finding (and that can be sourced to reliable sources), and the finding is still contested, then it is an NPOV violation to mention the EPA finding and not to note it is contested.

Also, you haven't made any refutation of my claim that certain of your phrases, such as "Despite being organized to support Philip Morris's corporate agenda" are unallowable on Wikipedia unless taken from a secondary source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's distinguish between things supported by reliable sources/scientific consensus and things we personally agree/disagree with. Secondhand smoke is considered to cause cancer, cardiovascular disease, and other health problems by every major medical and scientific organization on Earth. The EPA is one of those, but it's hardly alone. For that matter, the tobacco industry recognized the carcinogenic nature of secondhand smoke very early on. Insofar as we address scientific opinion on secondhand smoke, it should be clear to the reader that it is considered carcinogenic. I can find recent journal articles asserting that HIV is harmless and does not cause AIDS, but that does not alter the weight of scientific opinion, nor should we equivocate when presenting the science of HIV/AIDS on the basis of those few journal articles.

Separately, the American Journal of Public Health is a major, high-impact, widely respected peer-reviewed journal, and as such is a high-quality source by Wikipedia's standards. Similarly, the NIH is a major expert body and I would strongly oppose watering down NIH-endorsed findings on the basis of vague and ill-described conspiracy theories.

Separately from those concerns, I agree that tobacco documents in isolation and without secondary-source backup are primary sources and thus inappropriate for BLP material, and possibly for general use. MastCell ^Talk 19:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't agree with you about that particular finding of the EPA document. It's generally established (and admitted in the document) that they had no credible observational evidence, due to self-reporting errors. The finding, to the extent that it's scientific, was based solely on the components of secondhand smoke (and of BBQ smoke) being carcinogens; and that estimates of the in vivo carcinogenicity being proportional to the in vitreo carcinogenicity, and possibly the absence of synergistic effects (in either direction). But, even if the EPA document is reliable, we have no secondary documents linking TASSC with it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to bring to your attention the following very credible secondary source, 'Constructing "Sound Science" and "Good Epidemiology": Tobacco, Lawyers, and Public Relations Firms', by Bisa K. Ong, MD MS, and Stanton A. Glantz, PhD, American Journal of Public Health, November 2001, Vol 91, No. 11. So there is no doubt I will excerpt from the article directly (PM stands for Philip Morris):

PM began its "sound science" program in 1993 to stimulate criticism of the 1992 US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report, which identified secondhand smoke as a Group A human carcinogen. Ellen Merlo (vice president, PM Corporate Affairs) wrote to William Campbell (chairman, PM USA):

OBJECTIVES

Our overriding objective is to discredit the EPA report and to get the EPA to adopt a standard for risk assessment for all products.

Concurrently, it is our objective to prevent states and cities, as well as businesses from passing smoking bans.

And finally, where possible we will proactively seek to pass accommodation legislation with preemption.

STRATEGIES

To form local coalitions to help us educate the local media, legislators and the public at large about the dangers of "junk science" and to caution them from taking regulatory steps before fully understanding the costs in both economic and human terms.

In February 1993, PM and its public relations firm, APCO Associates, worked to launch a "sound science" coalition in the United States, with approximately $320 000 budgeted for the first 24 weeks. Three months later, The Advancement for Sound Science Coalition (TASSC) had been formed. TASSC described itself as "a not-for-profit coalition advocating the use of sound science in public policy decision making," even though APCO created it to help PM fight smoking restrictions. TASSC's public positioning and media campaign were designed to minimize its connections with the tobacco industry; TASSC's member survey mentioned only secondhand smoke among a list of other potential examples of "unsound, incomplete, or unsubstantiated science."

A broad base of issues and members was necessary to provide credibility to the new organization. Charles Lister, a lawyer at the tobacco industry's Washington, DC, law firm, Covington & Burling, wrote, "No one would take seriously a meeting even partly sponsored by PM in which EPA was more than one example among several. In any event, our points can be made more effectively and persuasively if EPA is discussed within a larger context." Lister suggested that "foods, plastics, chemicals, and packaging would be natural candidates" in broadening the scope of TASSC's sponsors and issues beyond EPA and the tobacco industry.

To develop TASSC into "a broad-based and diverse national coalition," more than 20 000 recruitment letters were mailed, with 100 letters mailed to "key scientists," signed by TASSC's chairman Garrey Carruthers (former Republican governor of New Mexico). The leadership and members, which included prominent scientists and policymakers plus representatives from corporations, would be provided PM's secondhand smoke agenda suggestions through APCO but made to feel the agenda was their own.

There's lots more. The entire document article is available for your reference at the National Institute of Health: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1446868/pdf/0911749.pdf

This information belongs in the Wikipedia entry.

--wikigaton (talk) 06:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

That paper is peer-reviewed, but clearly biased and fails to note facts (available to them) opposing the conclusions. We may (possibly) use facts mentioned in the paper, but any interpretations must be attributed to the authors. As for details of the GEP, many are contained in the Ethical Guidelines for Statistical Practice prepared for the ASA, and Ong and Glance should have known that. If they fail to note that GEP.12 is only a slight strengthening of Guidelines II.A.8, any other interpretations are suspect. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

"Painting themselves as heroic dissenters and promoting long-discredited contrarian themes, professional deniers" (such as TASSC, -ed.) "have insisted on equal time -- and they have used that time to slander scientists who are better at resolving complex technical issues than at playing politics with public relations people. Knowing that nothing in science can be proven absolutely, the deniers tell us to do nothing until we have absolute proof -- while they profit from the status quo -- and the problem continues to get worse." --Naomi Oreskes and Richard Littlemore, Vancouver Sun, June 18, 2010. (See: http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Climate+change+deniers+doing+disservice+legitimate+science/3169693/story.html). Clearly, this effort continues. But when the preponderance of facts and professional informed opinion supports one side of the argument, time should be allocated accordingly. --wikigaton (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Also from the Vancouver Sun article cited above: "The 1990s also featured a series of expert and expensive misinformation campaigns launched by: the American coal industry, through the Western Fuels Association; the oil industry, through the American Petroleum Institute; and (villains in search of allies) the tobacco industry, through a Philip Morris-funded organization called The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC)." --Naomi Oreskes and Richard Littlemore, Vancouver Sun, June 18, 2010. (See: http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Climate+change+deniers+doing+disservice+legitimate+science/3169693/story.html) --wikigaton (talk) 01:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

That is not an article; at best, it's an editorial or OpEd column, neither of which can be used in a Wikipedia article except as evidence of notability, or as the personal opinion of the authors. Also, would you please log in if you're going to sign your "name", "wikigaton". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes that's an OpEd, filled to the brim with facts. The American Journal of Public Health article is a scholarly research paper, overwhelmingly accepted as factual. Delightful reading. My other sources are true too -- the clear facts themselves. ~wikigaton (talk) 03:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

OpEds are not usable as references for "facts", only for the opinions of the author. See, WP:RS#Statements of opinion. And that AJPH article has enough howlers to make one wonder about peer-review. Still, it may be a reliable source, but nothing else you've produced is a reliable secondary source. If we can find reliable secondary sources refuting some of the arguments in the AJPH paper, relevant to what it's being used to support in this article, we can use those, also. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Advancement of Sound Science Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2045930493-0504.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110615152707/http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2047070975-0976.html to http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2047070975-0976.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)