Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Passive smoking

message: This mediation is closed. One or more parties have withdrawn their assent to meditation. Progress was made, but some issues were unresolved. 23:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

message: *Please stay focused on the draft work. 
*Avoid debating the subject.
:::This is not the place to revisit debates and make arguments about the topic. If there is dispute about what a source says, that is appropriate for discussion. If the dispute revolves around disagreeing with how other sources have interpreted that reference, that is not appropriate for discussion. We need to report what reliable references state, in proportion to their appearance in the whole body of reliable sources. We should be doing nothing more or less.
*Comment on the content, not the contributors.
:::Comments about other contributors distract from the appropriate discussion and will only raise hackles, instead of finding a resolution. 
*Please ensure claims are verifiable in reliable references.
*Make sure to adhere to a balance according to available reliable references.
*Please double-check claims against reliable sources, so original research is avoided.
:::It is imperative that any resulting draft adheres to the core content policies and the intimately related guideline. These are fundamental principles about how articles, and sections thereof, should be written and sourced. Each draft writer should be able to articulate how their proposal adheres to these rules and is an improvement over the pre-mediation version (according to the rules). 
Comments about other contributors and topic debates will be removed from the discussion. Stay focused on the work at hand. Vassyana 19:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Working conditions 

message: *Chido does the best job, the sources are well cited and their points presented with brevity. 
*JQ's article is the most lacking as it frames the dissent as "Tobacco Industry Response", I would like at least the dignity of a recognition that opposition on this issue is not just for industry hacks. Mastcells draft, however qualified all over the place, at least presents the matter as a controversy. 
*I agree with Desources that all these drafts are better than the original. 
*Gori is one of many scientists with that view, he is just particularly eloquent. For instance on the confidence intervals I found dozens of quotes but his was the most concise and representative of the general point. I assure you I could find another slew of them. 
Mickeyklein 19:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify, I proposed that title because all of the scientists quoted were in fact funded by the tobacco industry. I recognise that the tobacco industry position gets plenty of political support from people who are not getting paid, most notably libertarians like Penn and Teller, and I'd be happy to include a statement to that effect. There may even be independent cancer researchers and epidemiologists who dispute the conclusion that ETS is a cancer risk, but if so, strenuous efforts have failed to locate any statements by them. If Mickeyklein has such quotes, referring specifically to ETS (rather than out of context statements about confidence intervals in general), I'd be happy to have a look at them. JQ 10:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:mickeyklein|mickeyklein]]'s answers

message: 1. What does being neutral (as a whole) mean in WP:NPOV?
Neutral means allotting space to the discussion of conflicting viewpoints in accordance to their acceptance by reliable secondary sources and describing the various viewpoints using the same tone and neutral langauge used to describe consensus positions--the POV of the author should not be discernable from the way s/he has described the various viewpoints.
2. How does WP:NPOV#Fairness of tone affect this topic?
Certainly when describing minority views, we need to present them as plausible, being careful to not downplay their credibility by employing certain language. But while giving minority positions the dignity they deserve, it is equally critical to avoid presenting them in such a manner that an uninformed reader may be lead to believe they are  more widely accepted than they actually are. Settled controversies should not be presented as though they are still actively under debate; obscure beliefs should not be presented as though they are widely held; etc.
3. What does WP:UNDUE mean, in essence?
See #2, directly above. 
Yilloslime (t) 23:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Yilloslime]]'s Responses

message: #"Neutral" means that the article is not an advocacy piece.  The ultimate goal should be to minimize bias and maximize accuracy so that the general reader could not tell which side of a debate the editors are on.  
#Fairness of Tone is extremely important, yet perhaps the most difficult.  The key is not to minimize or disparage an opposing viewpoint.  Indeed, the policy states that an article should be written with the tone that all positions are at least plausible.  We can't let our personal bias get the best of us if we are to be taken seriously as editors.
#WP:UNDUE means that a minority viewpoint will, generally, get a smaller volume of space than a more prominent view.  It also means that one cannot portray a minority view as having equal or superior standing to a majority view.  Anything else, such as deliberate suppression or maligning of the minority view, is clear abuse of WP:UNDUE. Chido6d 23:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Chido6d's Responses

message: #"Neutral", as explicated in WP:NPOV, means that conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic (as evidenced by reliable sources) are presented accurately. Views should not be presented pejoratively by editors. However, if many or all reliable, authoritative sources view a position as incorrect or discredited, then we must accurately reflect what those sources have to say (without adding editorial disparagement of any viewpoint). In other words, we as editors should not be in the business of disparaging or debunking particular viewpoints. However, if a large volume of authoritative, reliable, verifiable sources disparage or debunk a viewpoint, then we need to reflect those sources without adding our editorial asides. The key to NPOV on controversial topics is good research and reliance on authoritative, reputable sources.
#:Addendum: Other quotes from WP:NPOVT which may be relevant here:
#:*"Wikipedia should report all major points of view; however, it should do so in proportion to the credibility of the experts holding the various theses." (emphasis mine)
#:*"One measure of a view's importance is the credibility of the experts who hold that view." (emphasis mine).
#:Credibility is probably somewhat relevant to neutrality here, since much of the literature (and many of the experts) produced by the tobacco industry are widely regarded as lacking in credibility (see Surgeon General's findings, U.S.A. v. Philip Morris et al., WHO inquiry, medical journal articles, etc cited in my draft). MastCell Talk 21:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:MastCell|MastCell's]] responses

message: To answer Vassyana's questions, I will simply quote what I consider the most significant passages of the Wikipedia offical policy where the questions he raised are addressed. This is not laziness: rather, I simply think the policy is very well formulated and fully corresponds to my understanding of the issues.
#WP:NEU consists in "representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)."
#Fairness of tone consists in "writing articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views."
#WP:UNDUE means that we "should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties."
--Dessources 21:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Dessources|Dessources']] responses

message: #This is not the place to rehash arguments regarding evidence, from either side. Stick to discussion about what reliable sources state. Do not put forward interpretations not supported explicitly by reliable sources. Focus on the published content, including reliably sourced commentary and interpretation of any data.
#Comments regarding user conduct must cease. They are not productive to our aims here in mediation and only serve to further inflame the situation. Focus on the content. 
#I will not, under any circumstances, "crown a winner" or declare a consensus version. That is well outside my role as mediator, and actually contradictory to it. Mediators do not take sides or impose solutions. 
#I would ask that everyone take some time to step back, take a breath and let the discussion cool down. In the mean time, please feel free to answer the questions I pose above. I believe that those questions cut to the heart of the disagreement, more than any given detail or specific point in the drafts.
#This is not the appropriate place to discuss arbitration. As a reminder, the mediation itself and related communications may not be used as evidence of user conduct.
#If users feel that they cannot continue the mediation in good faith, or wish to seek other resolutions for this issue, please bring it to my attention discreetly via email. I would prefer to discuss any issues individually to see what can be done to address the concerns and focus on the content issues at hand.
#Thanks! :o) Vassyana 16:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your first point is crucial. If it's accepted, then there's nothing left to argue about - the article makes good use of reliable sources to document the mainstream science viewpoint and the industry viewpoint(s). If your point isn't accepted, then of course as a mediator, you can't do anything to enforce it. JQ 06:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediator comments