I removed the following comments from the end of the new pars raising the issue - in the negative - of possible funding ties to various industries. This is not based on evidence and does not belong on the article page.--Bob Burton 15:51, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
- Ties to alcohol producers or alcohol vaporizer manufacturers have not yet been established.
- Ties to recreational drug manufacturers have not yet been established.
- Whether or not this was a forward action for the soon to be released Camel snus has not yet been established.
- Sorry for the strawmen. The tobacco section appears to argue that all of his advocacy was for the sake of $10,000 in reprint fees over the course of 20 years. I figured that since his tobacco work was supposedly for hire, the rest of his advocacy had to be for sale as well.
- Is there any reason why these articles aren't simply "just the facts"? For example, is there a reason why the article doesn't look like this? –Rimfax 19:49, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
May 30, 2008
Hello Rimfax. Thanks for your contributions, and welcome to Sourcewatch! I consulted about your changes, which were substantial and significantly changed the article, with our managing editor, Bob Burton, and we agreed that they consisted primarily of removing narrative and substituting quotes for the narrative. We do maintain more of a narrative style in Sourcewatch articles, as we feel it helps the reader understand why this person is in SW to begin with. The explanations about Sullum's quotes did contribute some analysis to the article, and since most of the information was well-sourced, we decided to roll back the changes. We will work on adding more references, though, to assure information in the article is authoritatively source, and we would certainly appreciate help with that. Anne Landman, TobaccoWiki Editor
- The narrative that I removed was mostly cut 'n paste from a blog post. The tone is POV, in the Wikipedia parlance. The rhetoric makes it appear as if someone has an agenda against him rather than against his arguments. The framing on the quotes consisted of putting words in the subject's mouth and hearsay about what he said. Is the point of SourceWatch to lampoon the viewpoints of the article subjects or to identify their sources or both? I can appreciate that Sullum is your political enemy, but don't you think that presenting the simple facts about money that he's recieved serves your agenda far better than a longwinded, snarky poke in the eye? After all, don't you want people who are debating him to be able to glance at this page and its sources and see quickly and concisely what money he's recieved from where? –Rimfax 00:13, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
June 2, 2008
Hi Rimfax, You make some very good points. Is there a way you can go through the article and cut out the point of view language you object to, while preserving the explanatory narrative that helps give the information context for new readers? Anne Landman, TobaccoWiki Editor
- Yes, I could try small edits on the article itself, or I could start with a copy of the article in a subpage, like I did above, so the main article will remain unchanged until we come up with something on which we concur. I think that the subpage would work better, so there's no time pressure to revert it if I make an edit that doesn't work for you. –Rimfax 22:48, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
October 26, 2009
I tried to put in a source that was needed, and didn't know how to do it. Someone feel free to insert this as it should be.
http://reason.com/archives/1996/12/01/actual-knowledge/1 - This is the citation for the following statement. - "what industry spokesmen said was not, by and large, literally false. Indeed, they carefully phrased their statements to avoid direct denial of tobacco's hazards."