Talk:Advancement of Sound Science Center

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Unheaded stuff

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I think a merge is definitely a good idea. MastCell 04:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Article does not meet the standards for neutrality   

message: 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)
thread_title:  Should "The" be part of the article title in this case? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  First sentence still needs work 

message: ...if anyone cares, see the discussion here.Yilloslime (t) 03:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Astroturf groups is up for deletion... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Prod? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  AFD`d 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Cool, i`ve removed it. mark nutley (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  CN Tags 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified