Talk:Stanton Glantz

message: Please research Wikipedia policies and bring the article into compliance.  Thanks. Chido6d 04:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: . MastCell Talk 17:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Sources needed 

message: 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.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 09:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Research section 

message: 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.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 15:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 16:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: and they've mentioned him by name? — goethean 17:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 17:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, let's see your sources. — goethean 17:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 18:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 18:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: And you expect us to just take your word for that. — goethean 19:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 20:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 20:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 22:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Study on E-cigs 

message: 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. --FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 16:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
thread_title:  Professor of what? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The Helena study 

message: 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."  A formal internal review concluded there to be "probable cause that Dr. Glantz’ conduct violated the Faculty Code of Conduct."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyboardsonataine (talk • contribs) 23:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual Harassment Accusations 

message: Article seems incomplete without this information Mfernflower (talk) 19:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention of the retracted paper he co-authored that got media attention? 

message: "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."
and
"The tainted science of Stanton Glantz". "How a longtime crusader against the tobacco industry became its unwitting ally" 
--TMCk (talk) 17:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  New sources 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2022 

message: 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.
https://news.yahoo.com/ucsf-settles-sexual-harassment-suit-084529669.html Eneeley1 (talk) 23:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: That would be a direct copyright violation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2022 (2)