Talk:Stanton Glantz

Sources needed

Please research Wikipedia 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 ^Talk 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)

"The material provided the first definitive proof that the tobacco industry had known for 30 years that nicotine was addictive and caused cancer" - this is a factual error. Nicotine is not classified as a cancer causing agent. . Entropy72 (talk) 20:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Can someone please make the above edit? I cannot - I have insufficient edits to get past the protection. Entropy72 (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

References

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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 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^{Let's play Freckles} 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 ^Talk 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^{Let's play Freckles} 18:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Was there something unclear about my request for reliable sources? Despite appearances to the contrary, this talkpage isn't a platform to spout unsourced defamation about the article subject. MastCell ^Talk 20:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not unsourced defamation; it's from Dr Michael Siegel who, unlike Glantz, is a doctor of medicine and not engineering. Glantz, unless he's utterly incompetent, must be aware that it's not possible to draw longitudinal conclusions from a cross-sectional study.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I thought we'd established that personal blogs were not suitable sources here? In any case, I don't recall the blog going so far as to call Glantz a "single-issue hack", or call him "Stan the Glans", although maybe I missed something. You're also over-reaching in your effort to discredit Glantz's paper (or maybe Siegel's blog is over-reaching and you're just parroting it; I can't tell). Glantz never claimed that the paper represented a longitudinal analysis; in fact, the authors explicitly state: "Because the KYRBWS used cross-sectional data, the directionality of our findings cannot be established." I don't see the grounds for your righteous indignation, frankly, since Glantz directly acknowledged the limitation that you (and Siegel?) accuse him of suppressing. MastCell ^Talk 20:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Glantz claimed that the study showed e-cig users were less likely to quit smoking; that is to say the least counter-intuitive and goes against all the actual evidence. More seriously, it is absolutely not a conclusion that could be drawn from a cross-sectional study. Nor is it the only weakness Dr (of medicine) Siegel has pointed out in the mechanic's work; it's well established that there are considerable health benefits in reducing tobacco consumption, albeit not as great as in complete cessation, and Glantz is denying that.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The paper has strengths and weaknesses, like any paper. But it is frankly ridiculous to bash Glantz for supposedly hiding a limitation which he acknowledged explicitly in the paper. I'm not willing to argue the literature further here; it's not an appropriate venue, and your tone ("the mechanic", etc.) makes it clear you're not particularly interested in a serious discussion in any case. MastCell ^Talk 21:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The trouble is its biggest weakness is the conclusion he claims to have drawn from it, and that's what's getting reported - "Tobacco expert proves that e-cigs make it harder to quit" etc etc etc. That's wrong, it's misleading and it's hard to conclude that it was a mistake - especially as he's still doing it even after the issue was pointed out to him. I'm certainly interested in a serious discussion about how to improve the article, because at the moment it's a puff piece that, as already stated by someone else, could have been written by Stan himself.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Research section

The Research section of the article contains a lot of what can only be described as padding. For example Smoke Free Movies and TobaccoScam are advocacy websites; how can these be described as research? Similarly, writing a book for young children is not research either. This section should be cleaned out and only activities that meet a reasonable definition of "research," i.e. an investigation aimed at finding something out, should remain.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 09:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Study on E-cigs

Why is no criticism of Glantz apparently allowed? His claims regarding e-cigs hindering smoking cessation are controversial and run against the bulk of the available literature. They have also been publicly criticized by the American Cancer Society, among others. This should be in the article.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 15:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

This is Stanton Glantz's biography. Any content added should cite a source which is on the topic of Stanton Glantz. Not random cigarette studies that have nothing to do with the subject of the article, and which you want to use to besmirch the reputation of a scholar. See WP:BLP and WP:OR. — goethean 16:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

As the American Cancer Society has now more or less accused him of lying I'd say he's doing a pretty good job of besmirching his own reputation. Wiki articles are supposed to be NPOV, and that doesn't mean suppressing any mention of the fact that his work is not exactly universally respected.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 16:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

and they've mentioned him by name? — goethean 17:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Not directly, although they did say that the study (which has his name on it) is making claims that the data doesn't allow. Doctor (of medicine) Mike Siegel has most certainly mentioned him by name.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, let's see your sources. — goethean 17:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I did put it in the article, but apparently it wasn't welcome. Can't imagine why. Criticism of Glanz study on teenage e-cig use.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 18:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Probably because the vast majority of your edits have violated WP:BLP policy. This for example, is just dumb. You are not more reliable than JAMA, and how you expect us to treat you as such really mind-boggling. — goethean 18:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Nothing dumb about it; the study found no such thing, and in fact was not capable of doing so. In fact the study found that as teen e-cig use goes up, teen tobacco use is going down. Not really surprising, of course, but it hardly backs up lurid claims of "aggravating the tobacco epidemic," does it?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 18:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

And you expect us to just take your word for that. — goethean 19:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh no, of course not. I expect you to take the CDC's word for it. After all they conducted the studies that Glantz is basing his claims on. E-cig use went up from 2011 to 2012. Tobacco use went down. It's all in the studies.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Even when e-cigs are counted as a tobacco product, which is of course absurd, tobacco use among high school students fell from 24.3% in 2011 to 23.3% in 2012. If they are indeed "aggravating the tobacco epidemic" (which isn't an epidemic of course, although we can forgive Stan - who doesn't have any medical qualifications after all - for not understanding that) it doesn't exactly show up in these figures, does it?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The New York Times article is a good source for describing the varying interpretations of this study. I'm not willing to engage any further with FergusM1970, per WP:SHUN, because I think his work here is motivated not by any encyclopedic interest, but rather by malice toward the article subject. (And, perhaps, by ignorance of how science works. The ACS is not accusing Glantz of "lying". They simply interpret the study data differently than Glantz does, which is a standard aspect of scientific discourse. To mischaracterize it, as FergusM1970 does, is unfortunate). That said, a good source is a good source—and the Times article is a good source. I don't really see a problem with this edit. MastCell ^Talk 19:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually I know exactly how science works, and it's also clear that the ACS aren't just drawing a different conclusion from Glanz; they are saying that the conclusion he claims to have reached cannot be drawn from the data, and they're right. Doctor (of medicine) Abrams from the Schroeder Institute went further with his brilliant piece of snark: "I am quite certain that a survey would find that people who have used nicotine gum are much more likely to be smokers and to have trouble quitting, but that does not mean that gum is a gateway to smoking or makes it harder to quit." In scientific terms Stan is way off the reservation here, although that's not surprising because after all he's an engineer, not a scientist. That's twice in a matter of weeks he's made claims that the data do not, and cannot, support. Doctor (of medicine) Mike Siegel has openly accused him of lying, although not in an RS.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Professor of what?

Is there any evidence that Glantz is a professor of cardiology? He's never studied cardiology and I'm informed by someone who works at UCSF Medical Center that being a professor in the Cardiology Division does not make one a professor of cardiology (in fact she found the idea laughable). The Cardiology Division's own website lists him as a professor of tobacco control, NOT of cardiology. As he doesn't have any medical training or qualifications it seems perverse to insist on calling him a professor of cardiology when he doesn't even make that claim himself. --FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 16:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

At UCSF, as at most academic medical centers, cardiology is a division within the Department of Medicine. (You can verify that by looking at the Cardiology Division homepage). Since faculty titles go by department, all of the full professors in the cardiology division (including Glantz) are titled Professors of Medicine. Likewise with the faculty in GI, oncology, rheumatology, and other medical subspecialties, whether they are MDs, PhDs, or whatever—they're all titled Professor of Medicine, because all of these subspecialties fall under the Department of Medicine. I'm surprised your inside source at UCSF didn't enlighten you on those points.

It is correct to say that Glantz is a Professor of Medicine, and also correct to say that he's a Professor of Medicine in the Division of Cardiology. Both are supported by the sources. I'm fine with either. It is beyond silly to make an issue of the wording here, although by this point I understand that your motivation is to try to discredit Glantz by whatever dishonest means present themselves. MastCell ^Talk 19:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The website is from the Division of Cardiology; to say he is not a faculty member there when he is listed there by the Division itself is beyond ridiculous. Yobol (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

And yet we find ourselves debating this obviously ridiculous proposition at great length. Isn't Wikipedia great? MastCell ^Talk 17:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

"Great"...hmm, I have other words I could use, but I'm sure I'd get blocked right quick after using them, so... :D Yobol (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The Helena study

I can't believe that Wikipedia is still citing Glantz's study of hospital admissions for heart attacks in Helena, Montana, without any further comment. It was bunk. --24.212.220.233 (talk) 01:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Those sources are the study's response section, and a hack piece written by a non-expert (an economist who has worked for Phillip Morris) for the extremely questionable Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. You're going to have to do a lot better than that for a WP:BLP, see WP:RS and WP:MEDRS for a start. Grayfell (talk) 02:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Sexual Harassment Accusations

Dr. Glantz was formally accused in Alameda County Superior Court of sexual harassment by a second woman, research associate Juliette Jackson. Her complaint alleges that he “repeatedly leered at Jackson’s and other females breasts."[1] A formal internal review concluded there to be "probable cause that Dr. Glantz’ conduct violated the Faculty Code of Conduct."[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyboardsonataine (talk • contribs) 23:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Mention of the retracted paper he co-authored that got media attention?

Article seems incomplete without this information Mfernflower (talk) 19:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

New sources

"Here Comes Trouble: An Anti-Tobacco Hero’s Complicated Legacy"."A lauded tobacco scientist’s crusade against vaping has some critics — and former allies — questioning his research."[3]

and

"The tainted science of Stanton Glantz". "How a longtime crusader against the tobacco industry became its unwitting ally" [4]

--TMCk (talk) 17:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2022

Part of the settlement, Stanton Glantz agreed to transfer ownership over the paper, and control over where it is published, to Neeley. And the university agreed to hold a two-hour training on sexual harassment and sensitivity for all employees and managers of Glantz’s tobacco research center. https://www.statnews.com/2018/10/16/stanton-glantz-ucsf-sexual-harrassment/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eneeley1 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2022 (2)

Glantz agreed in the settlement to transfer ownership over the paper, and control over where it is published, to Neeley. And the university agreed to hold a two-hour training on sexual harassment and sensitivity for all employees and managers of Glantz’s tobacco research center. Eneeley1 (talk) 23:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: That would be a direct copyright violation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

References