This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
current talk page.
Press releases are not suitable for medical claims. I have removed it
diff Here is a link to the source, clearly labled a press release at the top.
link Lately we have had a dumping of what should be on the positions page being added. This has to stop.
AlbinoFerret23:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Its a press release being used to make a medical claim, the source is not a policy statement, its not a review, its a press release and unsuitable for that use.
AlbinoFerret23:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
A press release from the
World Lung Foundation is a reliable source to cite for establishing what the World Lung Foundation itself said. See, for example,
WP:SELFSOURCE. It may not be a good source for establishing whether what it said is correct or not, but it's a good source for establishing what it said. —
BarrelProof (
talk)
02:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
If this were the Positions of medical organizations on electronic cigarettes article (another daughter page of Electronic cigarette), it possibly might be used for that purpose. But this is a medical page and its use is to make a medical claim. For that the source (press release) is not reliable.
WP:MEDPRIAlbinoFerret02:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with citing a press release to establish, as fact, that the organization that issued the press release said what it said in the press release. That's fine. I don't see anything in
WP:MEDPRI that says a press release can't be cited in such a manner, and if we find such a statement there, we should change it. —
BarrelProof (
talk)
02:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
"Statements and information from reputable major medical and scientific bodies may be valuable encyclopedic sources." according to
WP:MEDRS. The World Lung Foundation is an expert organisation for this.
"WLF provides financial and technical assistance to governments and non-government organizations in four priority areas: Health Communications and Information, Capacity Building, Project Management, and Operational Research. These projects are in the following lung health areas: tobacco control, asthma, and tuberculosis. The organization also works on maternal health initiatives." Read
World Lung Foundation.
QuackGuru (
talk)
03:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't really matter. A press-release is not a sufficient source to reach review article level, which is the consensus requirement for medical material added to e-cigarette articles. --
Kim D. Petersen07:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
@
BarrelProof: per long standing consensus, the lower level for reliability for adding medical claims to electronic cigarette articles, is that they are review level material per
WP:MEDRS. And a press-release does not even remotely reach that level of reliability. --
Kim D. Petersen07:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
There is no long standing consensus to ignore MEDRS. The exact same source is already used on another e-cigarette article.
QuackGuru (
talk)
20:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm completely at loss at how you could understand my comment as one of ignoring MEDRS, when i specifically noted that the consensus was for a strict reliance on MEDRS. Medical claims need MEDRS compliant review material! --
Kim D. Petersen12:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
The other page, Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes, does not use it to make a medical claim, it is not a medical page. This page is a medical page and you are trying to make a medical claim. It is a press release, and by long standing consensus you cant use a press release to make medical medical claims.
AlbinoFerret21:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
We are only trying to claim what the World Lung Foundation's statement is, so it's plenty reliable. We usually don't use press releases because they don't have the expertise to reliably report on studies, but they're perfectly fine for stating what an organization said. This is what we'd be searching for in terms of a statement from an organisation.
QuackGuru (
talk)
21:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
You do not have consensus (your going against long held consensus at that) to use press releases, regardless of the reason, to source medical claims. This is a medical page, the claims your adding are medical.
AlbinoFerret01:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
To include medical information, we need to use
WP:MEDRS compliant sources, which include statements by major medical organizations. This source clears that MEDRS bar, and is reliable for use for medical information, especially when in-text attributed to that organization. Suggestions that statements by medical organizations do not meed MEDRS are simply hogwash.
Yobol (
talk)
01:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Tertiary sources such as policy and statements from organizations are not MEDRS compliant secondary material. You should use the underlying secondary material. There is an entire page dedicated to such material. --
Kim D. Petersen12:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
It is ling standing consensus that sources that make medical claims must be a review, perhaps a formal policy statement would work. Not a press release, not a policy page, ect.
AlbinoFerret01:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
You can't just make up your own "long standing consensus" of what to use. We already have consensus on what medical sources to use, it's called
WP:MEDRS, and position statements by medical organizations meets MEDRS.
Yobol (
talk)
01:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Formal policy statements in peer reviewed medical journals, not press releases, or pages hidden in a website. For a position on the Positions page they might be used, but not to make medical claims.
AlbinoFerret02:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
You're just making up your own personal criteria now, that is not found anywhere in
WP:MEDRS. You don't get to personally decide on stricter criteria for what is MEDRS compliant for everyone else on Wikipedia.
Yobol (
talk)
02:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I've been editing the e-cig pages longer than you have, and I know of no such "consensus". Stop trying to make up your own rules.
Yobol (
talk)
02:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
A medical claim must be sourced by a
WP:MEDRS review. Press releases are not possible, and regardless what you think, this one doesnt even have consensus to be used.
AlbinoFerret02:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
And since we're at the point where you're repeating yourself, I bid you a good day, and offer a reminder that I will continue to restore properly sourced MEDRS compliant material such as positions of major medical organizations if they are wrongly removed. Cheers.
Yobol (
talk)
02:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
@
Yobol: So you are stating that you will ignore consensus? Nice
WP:BATTLEFIELD language there ("i will continue to restore..."). Do i need to find all of the times on
Talk:Electronic cigarette where the requirement for
WP:MEDRS review material for medical claims is stated - by the
WP:MED people?
Am i now to understand that the requirement is something like "it must be review material, except when the material says something that we like"? --
Kim D. Petersen12:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Again, you all are making up your own rules and "consensus" again. The only point I have ever made is that material about health needs to be sourced to MEDRS compliant sources. Statements by major medical organizations meet MEDRS.
Yobol (
talk)
13:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Not to mention of course that the text is also outdated nonsense. At this point in time there are studies of the carcinogenic (or lack thereof) properties of vapor. Why anyone would add such material, when they know that it is wrong,
is beyond me.--
Kim D. Petersen13:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Italian study on effects of reduced cigarettes and dual use.
I don't have a lot of time for editing right now but thought that
this Italian study I caught on PubMed will likely have useful information as it directly looked at the risk reduction for known smoking related diseases in dual users of e-cigarettes and traditional cigarettes. I only have the abstract but the conclusion is interesting.
Therefore, in order to achieve significant risk reductions, e-cig users should quit smoking as first choice, or, if they feel it is impossible to them, reduce the consumption of traditional cigarettes to less than 5 cig/day.
this review finds light and intermittent smoking carry nearly the same heart disease risk as daily smoking, and a substantial risk for cancer, with no evidence of a threshold. Overall, the Italian study agrees pretty well with the rest of the literature. If a device enables quitting smoking, it delivers substantial health benefits. If a device merely enables smoking less, not so much.
Cloudjpk (
talk)
18:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but despite your phrasing, the review still finds that light/intermittant smoking is safer than heavy smoking. To take an example: Chance for dying of lung cancer Heavy smoker(male 20/day): >23 times higher than a non-smoker. Light smoker (male 1-4/day): 3 times higher risk than a non-smoker.
Yes, as you point out, even for lung cancer, light smoking is 300% more deadly for lung cancer alone. Now add in the heart disease, where light smoking carries nearly the same risk as heavy smoking; heart disease is about half of all tobacco deaths. Yes, there are different ways to phrase this; one is: the dose-response curve is highly nonlinear. Another is: cutting down but not quitting does not greatly reduce risk.
Cloudjpk (
talk)
02:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I think this is rather symptomatic when we are talking risks in general: The quantification is important. But unfortunately editors are rather more focused on finding tid-bits that can seem dangerous. 'tis actually quite simple: If you are a non-smoker... don't use e-cigs. If your are a smoker... then you most certainly should either quit completely (best) or try e-cigs (better than not). --
Kim D. Petersen22:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
The risk distinction isn't whether e-cigs are added but whether cigs are subtracted :) Quitting smoking substantially reduces risk. Using e-cigs and quitting smoking substantially reduces risk, even if e-cig use continues. Using e-cigs and continued smoking does not substantially reduce risk, even if it's light smoking
Cloudjpk (
talk)
02:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Also of note is
this study on mice showing a reduced clearance of infection in mice exposed to e-cig vapor as well as measuring free radical contents of vapor. It seems a very robustly designed study on Njoy Bold e-cigarettes.
SPACKlick (
talk)
09:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Still it's a reliable source which has definite conclusions rather than speculation. There will be an RS to temper it specifying that this effect is likely due to a specific interaction of Nicotine in murids rather than an effect of e-cigs. But it's better than the blind speculation that forms most of this article.
SPACKlick (
talk)
17:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
It's a marketing claim that relates directly to environmental impact. So I could see it in either place. Thus I have no problem placing it in the Economics section with appropriate link to here.
Cloudjpk (
talk)
18:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Note
Metzger, Dennis W; Sussan, Thomas E.; Gajghate, Sachin; Thimmulappa, Rajesh K.; Ma, Jinfang; Kim, Jung-Hyun; Sudini, Kuladeep; Consolini, Nicola; Cormier, Stephania A.; Lomnicki, Slawo; Hasan, Farhana; Pekosz, Andrew; Biswal, Shyam (2015). "Exposure to Electronic Cigarettes Impairs Pulmonary Anti-Bacterial and Anti-Viral Defenses in a Mouse Model". PLOS ONE. 10 (2): e0116861.
doi:
10.1371/journal.pone.0116861.
ISSN1932-6203.
PMID25651083.{{
cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
KimDabelsteinPetersen agreed the source is reliable to use if the text is attributed.
[2] In-text attribution is a good compromise.
QuackGuru (
talk)
21:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
It does not matter if the claims are mundane or not. You are A) Ignoring consensus B) ignoring
WP:RS C) ignoring
WP:MEDRS and finally D) It is a primary source not a secondary one (opinions always are!) --
Kim D. Petersen23:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
And it would be rather nice if you stopped claiming that i revert "blindly"
[3], when it is quite obvious both why i revert, and that there is an already existing consensus, as well as policy, against using the McKee editorial. --
Kim D. Petersen23:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
You claim "It does not matter if the claims are mundane or not." But it does matter. This source is being used for claims such as the claims made by
advocates. Claims by advocates are not subject to MEDRS. This source is not
WP:Primary. Specifically, the claim is the "author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources" - the peer-reviewed journal has referenced 37 sources. I would very much like to see your argument that it is
WP:Primary.
QuackGuru (
talk)
03:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Please
stop flogging the dead horse and try instead to see if you can find
consensus for the usage of this editorial. It doesn't matter if it is mundane or not - if consensus and policy is against using such a source, then you can't use that source. Lets say i'm wrong about the primary issue - would that change whether you could use the source or not? No, it wouldn't: You still need consensus and you still per
WP:RS and
WP:MEDRS can't use an opinion source for factual material no matter if the material is mundane or not. --
Kim D. Petersen17:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree, its unusable. Editorials are primary sources. They state the opinion of the writer, regardless of what they look at.
AlbinoFerret18:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I previously showed it is not a primary source and for non-MEDRS claims it does not need to be MEDRS.
[4] Consensus is based on the arguments. So far no evidence has shown it is a primary. In fact, the evidence has shown it is a legitimate
WP:SECONDARY source. For example, when there are
37 references the source cited it shows it is a secondary source.
QuackGuru (
talk)
20:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
You have not shown anything that convinced people. And why on earth do you think that if a source uses references then it is a primary source? I'm quite frankly shocked. --
Kim D. Petersen23:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
of course the above should have been "isn't a primary source", which should have been obvious from context. But apparently there are some who want to misunderstand - so i'll correct it by this post, instead of by editing, since it has already been commented upon --
Kim D. Petersen01:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it is a primary source. See
WP:Primary: Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved.Asecondary sourceprovides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. You have not provided any argument it is a primary while I have shown it is a
secondary source.
QuackGuru (
talk)
23:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
And i've repeated again and again:
WP:RS. You can't use opinion articles for facts outside of medicine either! Opinions are opinions - they are not fact. --
Kim D. Petersen00:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
If you can't use an alternative source that is actually reliable for the "mundane [claims]" that you want to include ... then that really should tell you something. Could we now stop flogging the horse thats gone to meet its maker? --
Kim D. Petersen00:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Quack, No matter how you phrase it, no matter what angle you want to look at, its still an Editorial and is a questionable source. It is not suitable for this article.
AlbinoFerret23:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I think the policy statement from the American Association for Cancer Research and the American Society of Clinical Oncology is reliable for these claims.
QuackGuru (
talk)
19:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
The subject of the article is not "Nicotine". Unless you have a claim that nicotine, at the levels found in e-cigarettes, is "possibly a "lethal" toxin it is inappropriate to use in this article. There are lots of substances that can be lethal when taken in large quantities, even water. Using claims about nicotine at strengths above that found in e-cig's leads to original research by synthesis. when followed by claims about e-cigarettes.
AlbinoFerret20:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
The subject of the article is not "propylene glycol". But nicotine and other ingredients are used in e-cigs. The authors believe nicotine is potentially toxic.
QuackGuru (
talk)
20:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
That is incorrect, and a reading comprehension issue. The first sentence of the paragraph you used for that claim is talking about nicotine as a chemical, in its pure form. As a chemical, yes it can be toxic if taken at higher doses. But a few lines down (in the linked to policy statement in #1) we find
"However, given the relatively low doses of nicotine that ENDS deliver.... serious overdose from ENDS aerosol inhalation is unlikely."
So you have introduced Original research by saying the nicotine in e-cigarettes is potentially lethal. I have tagged it.
AlbinoFerret20:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
One fix would be to provide the full context from the source: "Nicotine is a known potentially lethal toxin, and poisoning related to ENDS can occur by ingestion, inhalation, or absorption through the skin or eyes...[but] serious overdose from ENDS aerosol inhalation is unlikely. In contrast, the concentrated nicotine in ENDS solutions can be toxic if it is inadvertently ingested or absorbed through the skin"
Cloudjpk (
talk)
17:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
AlbinoFerret thinks the Policy Statement from the American Association for Cancer Research and the American Society of Clinical Oncology is unreliable.
[7]QuackGuru (
talk)
01:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Neither is yours. i'm sorry to say. "reliable and relevant" is not an argument - it is an assertion. And the
WP:ONUS is on the one wanting to add information. --
Kim D. Petersen19:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
WP:ONUS Reliability does not guarantee inclusion. In this case the source was not a
WP:MEDRS review and was unsuitable to make medical claims by long standing precedent and consensus. That does not imply that I believe a press release is a reliable source, and this source is a press release.
AlbinoFerret02:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
The source is reliable. It is backing up a medical claim. See
Electronic cigarette#Health effects. "The World Lung Foundation applauded the 2014 WHO report's recommendation for tighter regulation of e-cigarettes due to concerns about the safety of e-cigarettes and the possible increased nicotine or tobacco addiction among youth.[70]"
QuackGuru (
talk)
02:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Tertiary sources are not reliable in this context. Do note how that section notes that these kinds of sources "may be valuable" not that they are automagically reliable as you seem to indicate. --
Kim D. Petersen03:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
A position statement is a tertiary source, not a secondary. And while scientific reports from such organizations can reach the level of formal reviews, the rest aren't, and this one isn't. Finally "Service announcements" are not reliable to the level of secondary reviews. Context matters, and reliability is contextual. --
Kim D. Petersen17:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
You claim a position statement is unreliable and "service announcements" are not reliable. Your argument is against MEDRS because MEDRS states "The reliability of these sources range from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals, through public guides and service announcements,..." I explained
this before that even "service announcements" are reliable according to MEDRS for organisations.
QuackGuru (
talk)
17:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
This is a problem, to state a medical claim you need a review. This press release is not a reliable source for this article and the way you want to use it. Reliability, in some form does not guarantee inclusion in an article.
WP:ONUS. Your repeated rephrasing, and trying to put words into the mouths of other editors by mischaracterizing what has been posted here is not going to change the facts that its a press release.
AlbinoFerret17:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
AlbinoFerret claims "This is a problem, to state a medical claim you need a review." This is a false. Organisations such as this one are reliable. Another organisation you deleted is also
reliable. You have a pattern of deleting organisations and then claiming on the talk page the source must be a "review".
You just dont get it, or hear it
WP:IDHT. Reliability is just one factor in inclusion. Sources can be reliable for some things and not for others. A press release is not suitable for making a medical claim, a medical review is whats needed.
AlbinoFerret17:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Per that link "The reliability of these sources range from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals, through public guides and service announcements, which have the advantage of being freely readable, but are generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature. This source is no way on par with a review, its a press release, not a formal report. Press releases are not even mentioned. You are misrepresenting that section, and mischaracterizing what the source is.
AlbinoFerret18:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
You may want to read
WP:MEDRS#Definitions for the difference between primary,secondary and tertiary sources. And the rationale for not using tertiary sources. It would be rather nice if you'd figure out that we are talking about tertiary vs. secondary - instead of the simplistic reliable or not. --
Kim D. Petersen 18:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC) (and of course you once more ignore that there is a general consensus on only using secondary review MEDRS sources for medical information on electronic cigarette articles --
Kim D. Petersen18:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC))
That was a formal policy statement in a peer reviewed journal, not a press release. You still have not addressed this as a tertiary source.
AlbinoFerret18:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
This is off topic for this section, but the source that was removed had other issues, including COI and Original research by syntheses. The reliability of that source is compromized by the fact the writers accepted funding and serve on the board of directors of pharmaceutical companies. I still think it should be removed but it seems others are disregarding the facts and replace it. The source in question in this section is a tertiary source, and is not included in the section you continue to link to, it is a failed argument that you continue not to hear. It is "generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature." less than a review, less than even a study, which cant be used either.
AlbinoFerret19:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
"The reliability of these sources range from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals, through public guides and service announcements, which have the advantage of being freely readable, but are generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature." This source does not need to be on par with a review according to
Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Medical_and_scientific_organizations.
QuackGuru (
talk)
19:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
According to consensus on e-cig articles it does need to be a review to make a medical claim. The quote even questions its usage. It says those sources "can" and not "they are" they vary from those equalling a review to those not. Those formal policy statements may be used, they may not per
WP:ONUS, the lesser tertiary sources should not be used to make some claims, like medical claims. Now before any other topic address this as a tertiary source. This is going round in circles and you are avoiding a direct question.
AlbinoFerret19:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
You want to ignore WP:MEDRS and now go with WP:ONUS for any source that is not a "review". Because organisations are not always on par with reviews does not make them not usable according to MEDRS. You need to address this as a reliable source like other reputable organisations. You should stop suggesting the general consensus is to only use "reviews".
QuackGuru (
talk)
20:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Now before any other topic address this as a tertiary source. This is going round in circles and you are avoiding a direct question.
AlbinoFerret21:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
(
edit conflict)Are you serious? You may want to look up how tertiary sources, no matter their reliability should be used in Wikipedia
WP:Tertiary. I'm not in the mood of following you down the strawman argument of what kind of tertiary source is more reliable than another tertiary source - since we shouldn't be using tertiary sources in the first place. --
Kim D. Petersen21:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Quack, you either are not understanding this issue, its a reading comprehension issue, or your just not hearing what has been said. Here it is boiled down. Sources are reliable for some things and not others. Sources can be reliable for one thing and not another. The source you are trying to use is perfectly acceptable for a position statement of an organization on a non medical page like Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes. Just like a medical source isnt appropriate on the Legal page. But it is not a review quality source. It is not reliable on e-cig articles to make medical claims. You keep going back to reliability, but reliability isnt black or white, but shades. The NY Times is reliable, but I cant use it to make medical claims. A study may be in a reliable source, but I cant use the source to make medical claims. A medical source may be reliable, but I cant use it on the Legal page to make regulatory statements. This continued arguing about reliability as if its black or white, or the sole deciding factor in inclusion is wrong.
WP:ONUS "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. " We have spent enough time on this to help you understand. I have assumed good faith, but I am starting to wonder if there are other motivations at play here.
AlbinoFerret22:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
By consensus, yes it does.
WP:ONUS, "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. "
AlbinoFerret23:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
The discussion is about MEDRS in reference to whether the source is reliable. ONUS is about V. These are two different things. You are both arguing the source is unreliable because it is not a review. But MEDRS never says for reputable organisations the source must be a review. I did address the tertiary nature of the source. A statement from reputable organisation can be a tertiary source or less than a tertiary source and still be reliable according to
Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Medical_and_scientific_organizations. For example, I previously explained that even a service announcement from reputable organization is reliable according to
Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes. That is the reason there is an article with lots of tertiary sources making medical claims at
Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes. Since you both have not shown how this reputable organization is unreliable you should respect MEDRS. Suggesting that ONUS should trump MEDRS when the source is reliable is not productive, especially without a specific reason to what is the issue with the text. Is the real issue you both don't seem to like what the source is stating? Is there any position statement from a reputable organization you will acknowledge as reliable and usable? Do you understand this source does not need to be on par with a review to be reliable and usable?
QuackGuru (
talk)
16:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
This whole section has me wondering about your
WP:COMPETENCE to edit WP. You cant split
WP:RS and and
WP:VER.
WP:VER and
WP:RS are two sides of the same coin. I suggest you read
WP:VER and notice that they both use the same noticeboard and that reliability is covered on that page. You cant have a reliable source if it isnt verifiable.
WP:VER is a core policy
WP:CCPOL that
WP:RS falls under.
You dont seem to understand the difference in how different types of sources can be used. You point to one page that has a different point of view on the topic and expect because a source can be used there it can be used everywhere. It cant, thats why
WP:ONUS exists, its part of the
WP:VER page, a core policy, you cant disregard it. We have tried and tried to explain it to you. But you keep going round in circles. This isnt the first time this has come up on your part,
it also came up on the Legal page. Its starting to look like a pattern. You are missing the fine details and in the process you are trying to force a square peg into a round hole, and I have to question the motive behind that. Reliability does not guarantee inclusion. What can be used on one page may not be suitable for another, per
WP:ONUS "Consensus may determine that certain information.... or presented instead in a different article." You are
beating the dead horse and this is becoming
disruptive behaviour from your side.
AlbinoFerret17:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
You have wasted enough of my time. Per Kim "it can be safely stated that
WP:Silence does not apply to further arguments of this kind from your side." You do not have consensus for any of the edits in this section.
AlbinoFerret18:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Please read the comments by
User:Yobol.
[9] Yobol stated "To include medical information, we need to use
WP:MEDRS compliant sources, which include statements by major medical organizations. This source clears that MEDRS bar, and is reliable for use for medical information, especially when in-text attributed to that organization. Suggestions that statements by medical organizations do not meed MEDRS are simply hogwash."
[10] "Again, you all are making up your own rules and "consensus" again."
[11] See
Talk:Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes/Archive_1#Removal_of_claim_tied_to_a_press_release.
QuackGuru (
talk)
19:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
WP:ONUS Reliability does not guarantee inclusion. In this case the source was not a
WP:MEDRS review and was unsuitable to make medical claims by long standing precedent and consensus.
AlbinoFerret01:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
You deleted
this source too but the source is reliable. There is a long standing precedent and consensus that these types of organisations are reliable. See Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes page for lots of reliable sources.
QuackGuru (
talk)
02:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
AlbinoFerret claims "Remove WMA statement that is not a review and makes a medical claim. Per long standing agreement on e-cig pages medical claims must be sourced to a WP:MEDRS review".
[15] However, the "source is MEDRS compliant".
[16]. There is no long standing agreement on e-cig pages medical claims must be sourced to a "review". Editors should not make up there own rules and "consensus" again.
[17]QuackGuru (
talk)
19:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
The quote above is about cessation. But there is other info about safety from the source. I already added it to my sandbox.
QuackGuru (
talk)
16:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Page protection
I've protected this page (fully) for 7 days. I seriously contemplated simply blocking the 3-4 edit warriors but thought we could go this route to encourage continued discussion. If the edit warring continues post-protection, other methods may be used.
Rjd0060 (
talk)
22:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
AlbinoFerret is continuing to delete reliable sources from position statements from reputable organisations. AlbinoFerret also deleted a number of sources including reviews without a specific objection on the talk page. See
Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettes#Positions. Most editors disagree with AlbinoFerret at the RfC. See
WP:SNOW.
User:Bbb23 blocked AlbinoFerret for violating the three-revert rule at the Safety of electronic cigarettes page.
[18]
No, as detailed above you have quietly gone about building a 20,000 odd character edit alone for a couple of weeks, gone ahead and inserted it without so much as notification on the talk page let alone discussion or any attempt to reach consensus. And then when this conduct is brought into question, elected to try and deflect the blame with personal attacks against another editor on the article talk page.
Levelledout (
talk)
15:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't have this article on my watchlist, but I was pinged twice by QuackGuru, so I thought I'd make a brief comment. I endorse
Rjd0060's protection and his threat of blocks if the edit-warring continues after protection expires.--
Bbb23 (
talk)
22:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
User:AlbinoFerret claims "You have not discussed one edit in the 19k characters you inserted."
[28] But I did discuss sources User:AlbinoFerret deleted.
[29] The response was "Reliability does not guarantee inclusion."
[30] That is not a specific objection for excluding relevant information. User:AlbinoFerret is not here to improve this page IMO. How is deleting numerous reliable sources improving this page?
QuackGuru (
talk)
22:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I just wanted to add that despite strong interest in the content and keeping well abreast of the developing scientific opinion on this topic I stopped editing any e-cigarette related page pretty much entirely because QuackGuru's behaviour in editing made it too draining to bother. Yes AF has strong opinions and if left unchecked by community consensus would probably result in a page with questionable NPOV status but he always discusses his edits, always invites argument and always responds to the argument presented. QG on the other hand has an opinion of what these articles should look like that in totam is divergent from consensus and just tries to steamroller changes in. Long term protection seems to be the only way to encourage QG to discuss things and even then he just repeats his "I didn't hear that" at every objection. What all the e-cig pages need is a massive haircut but it won't happen while QG can edit because either QG will add massive amounts of repetition or AF will feel NPOV being violated by imbalanced edits and re-instate positions. Sorry, mostly just venting here.
SPACKlick (
talk)
14:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, welcome to the club. There are a dozen or more editors here that have long ago given up any effort to keep this article reflective of the consensus of reliable sources because of the presence of e-cigarette advocates who sit on the article 10 hours a day and make it impossible for anyone not willing to do the same to have an impact. The problem is only exacerbated by canvassing for additional such advocates on other websites.
Formerly 98 (
talk)
15:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I ask you politely to please refrain from using terms like "e-cigarette advocate" as it is derogatory in this context and only inflames the situation. Also remember that it takes two to tango and that the likes of QG are most definitely not on the "e-cigarette advocate" side.
Levelledout (
talk)
15:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
If you have any evidence of canvassing bring it to the relevant WP boards. I'm not saying that advocates are vociferous on these articles but I disagree that they've had anything like the anti-consensus impact you're implying. However I don't want to rehash the old arguments again.
SPACKlick (
talk)
15:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Yup we have had some blocks due to paid editing / canvassing. Evidence of these sorts of activities is hard to verify. Thus best to stick to what the best quality sources say.
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email)
20:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
That is way too anecdotal to take seriously in my opinion, primarily because I can't find any reports of other ecig-related injuries at all. It's just another of the occasional lithium battery explosions which are commonplace because high density lithium cells have become so ubiquitous and cheaply manufactured. Cell phone and laptop users get much worse of the same.
EllenCT (
talk)
21:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Formaldehyde
Claims of exposure to chemicals, including formaldehyde are medical claims. This requires a
WP:MEDRS secondary source like a review. I have removed a claim here that used a "Correspondence" or letter to the journal as a source.
diff This is not a
WP:MEDRS secondary source.
AlbinoFerret
I'm uncomfortable with this. I would rather that the MEDRS guideline be used to err on the side of caution than exclude such warnings, even if they are based on brand new research.
EllenCT (
talk)
23:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Letters to a publication are never good enough for medical claims. The study on which it is based is flawed. It used a modern adjustable power source, and an old style atomizer with known wicking problems. Then they ran the battery at voltages never contemplated with the atomizer. This produced not vapor, but combustion. Dr Farsalinos, a known expert on ecigs has already
spoken on this topic.AlbinoFerret00:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree, seeing the cause now. How disappointing that the anti-ecig faction has attempted to use such nonsense. Thank you.
EllenCT (
talk)
22:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Then the search is off topic for the discussion, which was on a letter to a journal on a flawed study. Said study is at the top of your search.
AlbinoFerret21:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree that presents a solid argument against adjustable voltage ecigs, and should be included discussing those models. But I hope you agree that "in most cases, the levels are lower than those in tobacco cigarette smoke" is a rather essential part of the Conclusion.
EllenCT (
talk)
22:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
"The compositions and concentrations of these compounds vary depending on the type of e-liquid and the battery voltage.... carbonyl compounds were incidentally generated by touching the nichrome wire with e-liquid and increasing the battery output voltage.... Furthermore, battery output voltage affects the concentration of the carbonyl compounds in the emission....
Kosmider et al. showed that increasing the voltage from 3.2–4.8 V resulted in a 4 to >200 times increase in the formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and acetone levels.... battery output voltage significantly [affected] the concentration of carbonyl compounds in the e-cigarette aerosol. As such, high-voltage e-cigarettes may expose users to high levels of carbonyl compounds.... The amounts of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde in e-cigarette aerosols at a lower voltage were on average 13 and 807-fold lower than those in traditional cigarette smoke, respectively."
EllenCT (
talk)
23:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
"by far a less harmful alternative to smoking and significant health benefits are expected"
In all of the 13 references to the
PMC 4110871 MEDRS review, why is there no representation of this sentence? "Currently available evidence indicates that electronic cigarettes are by far a less harmful alternative to smoking and significant health benefits are expected in smokers who switch from tobacco to electronic cigarettes."
EllenCT (
talk)
22:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
"A 2014 systematic review concluded that the risks of e-cigarettes have been exaggerated by health authorities and stated that it is apparent that there may be some remaining risk accompanied with e-cigarette use, though the risk of e-cigarette use is likely small compared to smoking tobacco.[7]" It is in the article.
QuackGuru (
talk)
22:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
"Risk ... is likely small" doesn't correctly reflect "by far less harmful". Nor is there any representation of "significant health benefits are expected in smokers who switch."
EllenCT (
talk)
15:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
The part "is likely small" is summarising a different part of the source. The part "significant health benefits are expected in smokers who switch" is probably a better fit for
Electronic cigarette#Harm reduction. I will try to summarise the part "by far less harmful" in the body.
QuackGuru (
talk)
17:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm done with adding the part "by far less harmful" to my sandbox. I rewrote the text and added in-text attribution.
QuackGuru (
talk)
17:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Sure we have a range of sources that take different perspectives. A summary is "The limited evidence suggests that e-cigarettes are probably safer than traditional cigarettes"
Safety needs to be considered on both a population and an individual basis. If e-cigs renormalize smoking and end up increasing the use of traditional cigs they cause harm.
If a single individual switches from tradition cigs to e-cigs it results in benefit. If a non smoker starts e-cigs it will result in harm.
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email)
17:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
No, the sources with which you agree are summarized accurately, and you are trying to keep the sources with which you disagree from being summarized correctly. Has it occurred to you that someone in your position should be held to a higher standard of impartiality than ordinary editors?
EllenCT (
talk)
20:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Strongly disagree. There is no scientific definition of what a "chemical constituent" even is (as everything is made of chemicals), let alone agreement that "chemical constituents" is a synonym for toxicant.
Formerly 98 (
talk)
02:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
The paragraph is titled "Chemical Constituents".
[33] Then they explain about the "toxicants". I'd rather use a neutral word rather than poisons.
QuackGuru (
talk)
02:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, it may be in the source, but its incorrect. I'd challenge you to name a non-chemical constituent of any material or object.
Formerly 98 (
talk)
02:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
The paragraph is titled "Chemical Constituents" but the specific text says "toxicants". I went ahead and changed the word.
QuackGuru (
talk)
03:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
On a semi related note, where in the source can I find that using e-cigarettes exposes people to lethel doses of nicotine as this claim says "There are safety issues to being exposed to potentially lethal nicotine from e-cigarette use.[12]"
AlbinoFerret03:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Dual use of e-cigs and cigarettes increases chances of smoking cessation by up to 320%. The
evidence is stacking up. When is this shambles of an article going to start reflecting it?--
InfiniteBratwurst (
talk)
11:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
You need to give it time for the evidence to filter through to secondary sources. There are several interesting meta-analyses expected later this year. I think the first step in de-shambles~ing the article would be writing what is already there in clearer language.
SPACKlick (
talk)
11:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree. We don't need to mention every single study, even if it doesn't say anything worthwhile. The whole environmental impact section needs to go for example, because it doesn't say anything about environmental impact. Given what's actually known it should really be a pretty short article.--
InfiniteBratwurst (
talk)
19:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with deleting entire relevant paragraphs. I just added a more concise paragraph about nicotine and expanded the page a bit.
QuackGuru (
talk)
01:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
The last thing this article needs is expanding. What it needs is a drastic pruning to get rid of all the he said/she said rubbish. Just because a study exists does not mean its conclusions - especially if they boil down to "We don't know" - are worthy of including in the article. Please stop adding trivia.--
InfiniteBratwurst (
talk)
17:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Intro needs a big trim and tidy
Regardless of all the other issues, this article is marred by a very poor intro. The main fault is that its chock full of heavily ref'd arguments back and forth - when it should be a simple summary of the contents of the body. Keep the detail and refs down there. I intend to have a look at tidying it up when the protection is lifted.
Snori (
talk)
09:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I feel it's important we keep the references, just because it is so contentious of a topic (see
WP:LEDE). As for cutting it down, please do! --
CFCF🍌 (
email)
11:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
User:Snori, this
change is
WP:OR and does not summarise the body. For example, "Electronic cigarettes were first been developed in 2003" is not about safety. The part "The safety of electronic cigarettes is an ongoing area of debate." is unsourced.
QuackGuru (
talk)
19:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Chill out. I'm working on getting some wording together and doing this in my userspace/sandbox because that's convenient. Although you can clearly see that area, I don't think it's helpful for you or anyone else to comment on it while it's underway, because it will undoubtedly be initially far worse that the current lead. Thanks for the offer, but I also don't think it makes much sense for me to edit in your area.
Snori (
talk)
19:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
This is the fifth time I have been summoned to this article by a RfC. When I first saw it the article was poor, and it continues to get worse. It is very long and unclear, containing no information accessible to the ordinary reader, who may well have an valid interest in the subject. It appears to be written, not for ordinary readers, not even for ordinary doctors, but for specialists in the field. I wish it could be much shorter, and say something like this:
"Electronic cigarettes are a danger to health because they administer nicotine, a toxic and addictive substance which can cause < list of diseases, with references >. However, those who are addicted to nicotine may prefer them to tobacco-based cigarettes, which as well as nicotine also administer tar and < list of other chemicals, with references >, which can cause lung cancer and < list of other diseases, with references >."
I also agree that the lede needs a lot of work. Its overly difficult to read and complex. Per
WP:LEAD the lede should be easy to read and have the major controversies, but it should be more neutral that the edit you suggest.
AlbinoFerret13:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
No, the lede does not need a lot of work. You have not pointed out what is the specific issue. The lede should be four paragraphs per
WP:LEADLENGTH for this lengthy article.
QuackGuru (
talk)
18:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes 4 paragraphs is appropriate for an article of this length (ignoring whether or not the article should be trimmed) but that is a general guideline—but not absolute rule. It should also provide an accessible overview per
MOS:INTRO, Assess material based on relative importance to the subject of the article per
MOS:BEGIN and also should tell the nonspecialist reader what (or who) the subject is. The real issue with it is that it is badly written. I would also say that there is some weight issue in the distribution of information. It's poorly written and like the whole article suffers from repetition and bloat.
SPACKlick (
talk)
19:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
User:Maproom, the source says "Consequently, safety concerns exist regarding e-cigarette user exposure to harmful and potentially harmful constituents (HPHCs), including nicotine, which has the potential to cause addiction and other adverse events."
[34] For the lede I kept the wording concise. The lede now says "There are safety issues to being exposed to potentially lethal nicotine from e-cigarette use.[12]"
[35]QuackGuru (
talk)
03:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I tweaked the wording. It now says "There are safety issues to e-cigarette users from being exposed to potentially lethal nicotine.[12]"
QuackGuru (
talk)
03:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
"There are safety issues to e-cigarette users from being exposed to potentially
lethalnicotine." Ref to: Cheng, T. (2014). "Chemical evaluation of electronic cigarettes". Tobacco Control 23 (Supplement 2): ii11–ii17. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051482. ISSN 0964-4563. PMC 3995255.
PMID24732157.
- Unfortunately I can see nothing in Cheng to justify "potentially lethal" at all, as two others have now pointed out.
Johnbod (
talk)
03:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
The source says "...safety concerns exist regarding e-cigarette user exposure to harmful and potentially harmful constituents (HPHCs), including nicotine...".
QuackGuru (
talk)
03:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
The question is, why did you change it to "potentially lethal" in the first place? Because that fails
WP:V and looks a lot like POV pushing, doesn't it?--
InfiniteBratwurst (
talk)
19:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I think the real question is, can anyone phrase "There are safety issues to e-cigarette users..." in English? maybe "Some have safety concerns over users being exposed to potentially harmful nicotine" or "there are safety concerns over..." or "There are potential dangers from..." Because it's currently worded really unreadably.
SPACKlick (
talk)
07:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
That is awkward, isn't it. Hrm. Perhaps "concerns the product isn't safe" or "concerns the product presents risks to"? Better yet, put it in an active voice: "health and safety experts are concerned about risks from"?
Cloudjpk (
talk)
21:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that adresses the point at all. "Exposed to potentially harmful nicotine" is very different from "Experts are concerned about several potential risks from the product" I like Cloudjpk's "health and safety experts are concerned about risks from" but it will need a ref for health and safety experts (experts could be changed for proffessionals, bodies etc as apt for ref)
SPACKlick (
talk)
10:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Quack added a ton, all without discussing any of it.
diff He added position statements, which are still being discussed as additions in the above RFC.
AlbinoFerret23:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Since the RFC is only days old, it is way to soon to draw conclusions. Large changes should be discussed before making the edits. Not just that some sources but specifically whats to be added. 17,450 characters isnt just large, its huge. Making it all at one time is another problem, discuss changes first and in manageable pieces.
AlbinoFerret13:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Clearly the whole point in having an RFC is to determine consensus. But what QG is saying is that even though the RFC is nowhere near finished they can determine the consensus themselves. Therefore there's no need for an uninvolved editor to come in, close the RFC and determine consensus because QG can just do it themselves. Not only that they can perform yet another massive edit on that basis. Rigghttt....
Levelledout (
talk)
14:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
This is a tempest in a teapot. You guys are getting buried in your attempt to override major Wikipedia sourcing guidelines via a local RFc, and even if you had succeeded you'd have been reversed in administrative review. Maybe best to save your ammo for a fight in which you have a defensible position and are not massively outnumbered.
Formerly 98 (
talk)
15:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Of course. The RFC has its uses but overriding major Wikipedia sourcing guidelines is not one of them. It would nice to move forward here.
Cloudjpk (
talk)
19:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually I haven't even really looked at the RFC in detail. All I have noticed is that a particular editor, not for the first time, comes along and makes a massive edit and then gives the reason above to justify it which is not a valid one. The edit as usual contains highly contentious, vague, partisan statements. Sourcing guidelines are not the be-all-and-end-all of Wikipedia and even the sourcing guidelines themselves state that compliance does not guarantee inclusion. Regardless of sourcing, neutrality has to respected and consensus has to be sought. You can't trump those things either. So no actually, I don't think its justified to ignore an ongoing RFC merely because something complies with one particular guideline.
Levelledout (
talk)
23:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
By reverting the entire edit you are attributing
WP:BADFAITH, and are improperly removing viable content because you disapprove of including a minor portion of it. There is nothing that stands against making major edits, and studies have been provided that show that most Wikipedia content is made through major edits. --
CFCF🍌 (
email)
23:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Where is the discussion of the edits? And quite a bit of this mammoth edit is referencing the sources that are under discussion at the RfC. And since it is quite obvious from the fact that it gets reverted that the edits are controversial. It is indeed
WP:BADFAITH to keep inserting it against consensus and in the face of a running RfC. I would suggest that editors try to add/discuss individual additions that are not part of the running RfC - instead of doing massive insertions that they know that there isn't consensus for! --
Kim D. Petersen23:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree, smaller edits should be brought up in discussion and then the discussion can lead to an edit. These mammoth edits are hard to break apart. Quack did this in secret,
building a huge edit in his sandbox without any discussion and dumping it in all at once. He had more than enough opportunity to bring the edits up in pieces seeing how he started building on Feb 10th.
AlbinoFerret02:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
You misunderstand when you use the term secret. The sole reason for the
WP:Sandbox is for experimenting without disturbing main space content, and using it is not per se contentious as you seem to assume. If you believe any of the individual statements are subject to the RfC you should take them up appropriately, instead of blanket deleting major additions. --
CFCF🍌 (
email)
10:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
No,, this wasnt just experimenting. 16 days of building on edits without discussion is a real problem when you are planning on making a mammoth edit. This wasnt perfecting the way it looks in a few hours and then adding a little bit to the article. This was just adding, and adding day after day without discussing it with any editor and then dumping 16,414 characters into the article. You cant put lipstick on that pig.
AlbinoFerret12:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
The size is irrelevant? I dont think so, its about 1/4th of the present articles size.
WP:CAUTIOUS deals with this, its policy to discuss major changes to the article. 16,414 characters is more than the definition of a major change. It isnt just because its to large, its just good practice to discuss edits. Making them smaller to make discussions easer is the best way to get inclusion, unless you want to discuss this for a long time because of a lack of focus. But specific edits still have not been brought forth.
AlbinoFerret13:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
The size of the edit is irrelevant as an argument against it, at least as long as no individual concerns have been raised. Start by actually commenting on what you disagree with in the edit if you wish to dispute it. --
CFCF🍌 (
email)
21:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
QuackGuru added about 19k characters of edits without discussion, including one 16k character edit. What is the consensus for keeping the edit? It is against
WP:CAUTIOUS and should have been discussed.
AlbinoFerret06:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
The edits themselves were never discussed. A majority of the sources were never discussed, and none were discussed before adding them.
AlbinoFerret18:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
It isnt just not liking the material. There are issues with some of the sources, currently the subject of a RFC. There are also NPOV issues. There is a
WP:CAUTIOUS issue in that a mammoth edit was done without any discussion or consensus.
AlbinoFerret22:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
This section adds nothing to the article. It's basically just speculation, as shown by the endless repetition of "no studies have been conducted into...". I propose that we remove it until some actual research has been done.--
InfiniteBratwurst (
talk)
18:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Support - This section says nothing. It's 100% speculation and the reference itself admits it isn't based on any research, so it's not a secondary source.--
InfiniteBratwurst (
talk)
23:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose per Doc James. The concerns are from quality secondary sources, they should not be downplayed because they are unsubstantiated when they make no secret of it. --
CFCF🍌 (
email)
22:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
None of which support the claims you made in the article, because those are all "No research has been conducted into..." That section adds nothing and should be removed until there is some research.--
InfiniteBratwurst (
talk)
01:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Every sentence starts "No research has been conducted into..." or "Nothing is known about...". Therefore this is not a secondary source. The section says nothing. I think you have
WP:OWN issues with it.--
InfiniteBratwurst (
talk)
11:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
It is too long and should be the last section of all. That's if we think that "Environmental Impact" is actually a "safety" issue at all. I suspect that we don't so treat it for other products.
Johnbod (
talk)
04:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Agree with this. "Known unknowns" may be notable as Doc James says above, but is it really necessary to go into quite as much detail about these quite specific type of unknowns as we have done, all drawn practically from one single source? I suspect not. One or two sentences summing up the most important points would probably suffice, if environmental impact is relevant to the article that is. If not it probably belongs in the main one.
Levelledout (
talk)
00:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
^
abEngland, Lucinda J.; Bunnell, Rebecca E.; Pechacek, Terry F.; Tong, Van T.; McAfee, Tim A. (2015). "Nicotine and the Developing Human". American Journal of Preventive Medicine.
doi:
10.1016/j.amepre.2015.01.015.
ISSN0749-3797.
PMID25794473.
Cases of individuals being injured by exploding lithium batteries have also been reported in the news. Some lithium batteries are poorly designed, contain low-quality materials, or have manufacturing flaws and defects. Improper use and handling of these batteries can contribute to thermal runaway, where the internal battery temperature increases and causes fires or explosions.35 Some of these explosions have resulted in house and car fires and severe skin burns.
You mean all the usual issues of lithium battery ownership, yawn, why not just put all of this on the relevant page
Lithium battery and then link there with a one liner "usual risks of
lithium batteries"
Effect on Bystanders
Hajek makes the wider claim that any effect on bystanders would be likely much less harmful than tobacco cigarettes if it's harmful at all. This claim should be included with the claim about exposing bystanders to toxins to avoid NPOV.
SPACKlick (
talk)
02:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
current talk page.
Press releases are not suitable for medical claims. I have removed it
diff Here is a link to the source, clearly labled a press release at the top.
link Lately we have had a dumping of what should be on the positions page being added. This has to stop.
AlbinoFerret23:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Its a press release being used to make a medical claim, the source is not a policy statement, its not a review, its a press release and unsuitable for that use.
AlbinoFerret23:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
A press release from the
World Lung Foundation is a reliable source to cite for establishing what the World Lung Foundation itself said. See, for example,
WP:SELFSOURCE. It may not be a good source for establishing whether what it said is correct or not, but it's a good source for establishing what it said. —
BarrelProof (
talk)
02:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
If this were the Positions of medical organizations on electronic cigarettes article (another daughter page of Electronic cigarette), it possibly might be used for that purpose. But this is a medical page and its use is to make a medical claim. For that the source (press release) is not reliable.
WP:MEDPRIAlbinoFerret02:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with citing a press release to establish, as fact, that the organization that issued the press release said what it said in the press release. That's fine. I don't see anything in
WP:MEDPRI that says a press release can't be cited in such a manner, and if we find such a statement there, we should change it. —
BarrelProof (
talk)
02:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
"Statements and information from reputable major medical and scientific bodies may be valuable encyclopedic sources." according to
WP:MEDRS. The World Lung Foundation is an expert organisation for this.
"WLF provides financial and technical assistance to governments and non-government organizations in four priority areas: Health Communications and Information, Capacity Building, Project Management, and Operational Research. These projects are in the following lung health areas: tobacco control, asthma, and tuberculosis. The organization also works on maternal health initiatives." Read
World Lung Foundation.
QuackGuru (
talk)
03:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't really matter. A press-release is not a sufficient source to reach review article level, which is the consensus requirement for medical material added to e-cigarette articles. --
Kim D. Petersen07:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
@
BarrelProof: per long standing consensus, the lower level for reliability for adding medical claims to electronic cigarette articles, is that they are review level material per
WP:MEDRS. And a press-release does not even remotely reach that level of reliability. --
Kim D. Petersen07:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
There is no long standing consensus to ignore MEDRS. The exact same source is already used on another e-cigarette article.
QuackGuru (
talk)
20:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm completely at loss at how you could understand my comment as one of ignoring MEDRS, when i specifically noted that the consensus was for a strict reliance on MEDRS. Medical claims need MEDRS compliant review material! --
Kim D. Petersen12:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
The other page, Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes, does not use it to make a medical claim, it is not a medical page. This page is a medical page and you are trying to make a medical claim. It is a press release, and by long standing consensus you cant use a press release to make medical medical claims.
AlbinoFerret21:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
We are only trying to claim what the World Lung Foundation's statement is, so it's plenty reliable. We usually don't use press releases because they don't have the expertise to reliably report on studies, but they're perfectly fine for stating what an organization said. This is what we'd be searching for in terms of a statement from an organisation.
QuackGuru (
talk)
21:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
You do not have consensus (your going against long held consensus at that) to use press releases, regardless of the reason, to source medical claims. This is a medical page, the claims your adding are medical.
AlbinoFerret01:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
To include medical information, we need to use
WP:MEDRS compliant sources, which include statements by major medical organizations. This source clears that MEDRS bar, and is reliable for use for medical information, especially when in-text attributed to that organization. Suggestions that statements by medical organizations do not meed MEDRS are simply hogwash.
Yobol (
talk)
01:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Tertiary sources such as policy and statements from organizations are not MEDRS compliant secondary material. You should use the underlying secondary material. There is an entire page dedicated to such material. --
Kim D. Petersen12:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
It is ling standing consensus that sources that make medical claims must be a review, perhaps a formal policy statement would work. Not a press release, not a policy page, ect.
AlbinoFerret01:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
You can't just make up your own "long standing consensus" of what to use. We already have consensus on what medical sources to use, it's called
WP:MEDRS, and position statements by medical organizations meets MEDRS.
Yobol (
talk)
01:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Formal policy statements in peer reviewed medical journals, not press releases, or pages hidden in a website. For a position on the Positions page they might be used, but not to make medical claims.
AlbinoFerret02:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
You're just making up your own personal criteria now, that is not found anywhere in
WP:MEDRS. You don't get to personally decide on stricter criteria for what is MEDRS compliant for everyone else on Wikipedia.
Yobol (
talk)
02:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I've been editing the e-cig pages longer than you have, and I know of no such "consensus". Stop trying to make up your own rules.
Yobol (
talk)
02:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
A medical claim must be sourced by a
WP:MEDRS review. Press releases are not possible, and regardless what you think, this one doesnt even have consensus to be used.
AlbinoFerret02:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
And since we're at the point where you're repeating yourself, I bid you a good day, and offer a reminder that I will continue to restore properly sourced MEDRS compliant material such as positions of major medical organizations if they are wrongly removed. Cheers.
Yobol (
talk)
02:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
@
Yobol: So you are stating that you will ignore consensus? Nice
WP:BATTLEFIELD language there ("i will continue to restore..."). Do i need to find all of the times on
Talk:Electronic cigarette where the requirement for
WP:MEDRS review material for medical claims is stated - by the
WP:MED people?
Am i now to understand that the requirement is something like "it must be review material, except when the material says something that we like"? --
Kim D. Petersen12:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Again, you all are making up your own rules and "consensus" again. The only point I have ever made is that material about health needs to be sourced to MEDRS compliant sources. Statements by major medical organizations meet MEDRS.
Yobol (
talk)
13:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Not to mention of course that the text is also outdated nonsense. At this point in time there are studies of the carcinogenic (or lack thereof) properties of vapor. Why anyone would add such material, when they know that it is wrong,
is beyond me.--
Kim D. Petersen13:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Italian study on effects of reduced cigarettes and dual use.
I don't have a lot of time for editing right now but thought that
this Italian study I caught on PubMed will likely have useful information as it directly looked at the risk reduction for known smoking related diseases in dual users of e-cigarettes and traditional cigarettes. I only have the abstract but the conclusion is interesting.
Therefore, in order to achieve significant risk reductions, e-cig users should quit smoking as first choice, or, if they feel it is impossible to them, reduce the consumption of traditional cigarettes to less than 5 cig/day.
this review finds light and intermittent smoking carry nearly the same heart disease risk as daily smoking, and a substantial risk for cancer, with no evidence of a threshold. Overall, the Italian study agrees pretty well with the rest of the literature. If a device enables quitting smoking, it delivers substantial health benefits. If a device merely enables smoking less, not so much.
Cloudjpk (
talk)
18:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but despite your phrasing, the review still finds that light/intermittant smoking is safer than heavy smoking. To take an example: Chance for dying of lung cancer Heavy smoker(male 20/day): >23 times higher than a non-smoker. Light smoker (male 1-4/day): 3 times higher risk than a non-smoker.
Yes, as you point out, even for lung cancer, light smoking is 300% more deadly for lung cancer alone. Now add in the heart disease, where light smoking carries nearly the same risk as heavy smoking; heart disease is about half of all tobacco deaths. Yes, there are different ways to phrase this; one is: the dose-response curve is highly nonlinear. Another is: cutting down but not quitting does not greatly reduce risk.
Cloudjpk (
talk)
02:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I think this is rather symptomatic when we are talking risks in general: The quantification is important. But unfortunately editors are rather more focused on finding tid-bits that can seem dangerous. 'tis actually quite simple: If you are a non-smoker... don't use e-cigs. If your are a smoker... then you most certainly should either quit completely (best) or try e-cigs (better than not). --
Kim D. Petersen22:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
The risk distinction isn't whether e-cigs are added but whether cigs are subtracted :) Quitting smoking substantially reduces risk. Using e-cigs and quitting smoking substantially reduces risk, even if e-cig use continues. Using e-cigs and continued smoking does not substantially reduce risk, even if it's light smoking
Cloudjpk (
talk)
02:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Also of note is
this study on mice showing a reduced clearance of infection in mice exposed to e-cig vapor as well as measuring free radical contents of vapor. It seems a very robustly designed study on Njoy Bold e-cigarettes.
SPACKlick (
talk)
09:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Still it's a reliable source which has definite conclusions rather than speculation. There will be an RS to temper it specifying that this effect is likely due to a specific interaction of Nicotine in murids rather than an effect of e-cigs. But it's better than the blind speculation that forms most of this article.
SPACKlick (
talk)
17:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
It's a marketing claim that relates directly to environmental impact. So I could see it in either place. Thus I have no problem placing it in the Economics section with appropriate link to here.
Cloudjpk (
talk)
18:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Note
Metzger, Dennis W; Sussan, Thomas E.; Gajghate, Sachin; Thimmulappa, Rajesh K.; Ma, Jinfang; Kim, Jung-Hyun; Sudini, Kuladeep; Consolini, Nicola; Cormier, Stephania A.; Lomnicki, Slawo; Hasan, Farhana; Pekosz, Andrew; Biswal, Shyam (2015). "Exposure to Electronic Cigarettes Impairs Pulmonary Anti-Bacterial and Anti-Viral Defenses in a Mouse Model". PLOS ONE. 10 (2): e0116861.
doi:
10.1371/journal.pone.0116861.
ISSN1932-6203.
PMID25651083.{{
cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
KimDabelsteinPetersen agreed the source is reliable to use if the text is attributed.
[2] In-text attribution is a good compromise.
QuackGuru (
talk)
21:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
It does not matter if the claims are mundane or not. You are A) Ignoring consensus B) ignoring
WP:RS C) ignoring
WP:MEDRS and finally D) It is a primary source not a secondary one (opinions always are!) --
Kim D. Petersen23:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
And it would be rather nice if you stopped claiming that i revert "blindly"
[3], when it is quite obvious both why i revert, and that there is an already existing consensus, as well as policy, against using the McKee editorial. --
Kim D. Petersen23:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
You claim "It does not matter if the claims are mundane or not." But it does matter. This source is being used for claims such as the claims made by
advocates. Claims by advocates are not subject to MEDRS. This source is not
WP:Primary. Specifically, the claim is the "author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources" - the peer-reviewed journal has referenced 37 sources. I would very much like to see your argument that it is
WP:Primary.
QuackGuru (
talk)
03:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Please
stop flogging the dead horse and try instead to see if you can find
consensus for the usage of this editorial. It doesn't matter if it is mundane or not - if consensus and policy is against using such a source, then you can't use that source. Lets say i'm wrong about the primary issue - would that change whether you could use the source or not? No, it wouldn't: You still need consensus and you still per
WP:RS and
WP:MEDRS can't use an opinion source for factual material no matter if the material is mundane or not. --
Kim D. Petersen17:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree, its unusable. Editorials are primary sources. They state the opinion of the writer, regardless of what they look at.
AlbinoFerret18:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I previously showed it is not a primary source and for non-MEDRS claims it does not need to be MEDRS.
[4] Consensus is based on the arguments. So far no evidence has shown it is a primary. In fact, the evidence has shown it is a legitimate
WP:SECONDARY source. For example, when there are
37 references the source cited it shows it is a secondary source.
QuackGuru (
talk)
20:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
You have not shown anything that convinced people. And why on earth do you think that if a source uses references then it is a primary source? I'm quite frankly shocked. --
Kim D. Petersen23:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
of course the above should have been "isn't a primary source", which should have been obvious from context. But apparently there are some who want to misunderstand - so i'll correct it by this post, instead of by editing, since it has already been commented upon --
Kim D. Petersen01:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it is a primary source. See
WP:Primary: Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved.Asecondary sourceprovides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. You have not provided any argument it is a primary while I have shown it is a
secondary source.
QuackGuru (
talk)
23:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
And i've repeated again and again:
WP:RS. You can't use opinion articles for facts outside of medicine either! Opinions are opinions - they are not fact. --
Kim D. Petersen00:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
If you can't use an alternative source that is actually reliable for the "mundane [claims]" that you want to include ... then that really should tell you something. Could we now stop flogging the horse thats gone to meet its maker? --
Kim D. Petersen00:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Quack, No matter how you phrase it, no matter what angle you want to look at, its still an Editorial and is a questionable source. It is not suitable for this article.
AlbinoFerret23:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I think the policy statement from the American Association for Cancer Research and the American Society of Clinical Oncology is reliable for these claims.
QuackGuru (
talk)
19:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
The subject of the article is not "Nicotine". Unless you have a claim that nicotine, at the levels found in e-cigarettes, is "possibly a "lethal" toxin it is inappropriate to use in this article. There are lots of substances that can be lethal when taken in large quantities, even water. Using claims about nicotine at strengths above that found in e-cig's leads to original research by synthesis. when followed by claims about e-cigarettes.
AlbinoFerret20:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
The subject of the article is not "propylene glycol". But nicotine and other ingredients are used in e-cigs. The authors believe nicotine is potentially toxic.
QuackGuru (
talk)
20:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
That is incorrect, and a reading comprehension issue. The first sentence of the paragraph you used for that claim is talking about nicotine as a chemical, in its pure form. As a chemical, yes it can be toxic if taken at higher doses. But a few lines down (in the linked to policy statement in #1) we find
"However, given the relatively low doses of nicotine that ENDS deliver.... serious overdose from ENDS aerosol inhalation is unlikely."
So you have introduced Original research by saying the nicotine in e-cigarettes is potentially lethal. I have tagged it.
AlbinoFerret20:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
One fix would be to provide the full context from the source: "Nicotine is a known potentially lethal toxin, and poisoning related to ENDS can occur by ingestion, inhalation, or absorption through the skin or eyes...[but] serious overdose from ENDS aerosol inhalation is unlikely. In contrast, the concentrated nicotine in ENDS solutions can be toxic if it is inadvertently ingested or absorbed through the skin"
Cloudjpk (
talk)
17:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
AlbinoFerret thinks the Policy Statement from the American Association for Cancer Research and the American Society of Clinical Oncology is unreliable.
[7]QuackGuru (
talk)
01:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Neither is yours. i'm sorry to say. "reliable and relevant" is not an argument - it is an assertion. And the
WP:ONUS is on the one wanting to add information. --
Kim D. Petersen19:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
WP:ONUS Reliability does not guarantee inclusion. In this case the source was not a
WP:MEDRS review and was unsuitable to make medical claims by long standing precedent and consensus. That does not imply that I believe a press release is a reliable source, and this source is a press release.
AlbinoFerret02:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
The source is reliable. It is backing up a medical claim. See
Electronic cigarette#Health effects. "The World Lung Foundation applauded the 2014 WHO report's recommendation for tighter regulation of e-cigarettes due to concerns about the safety of e-cigarettes and the possible increased nicotine or tobacco addiction among youth.[70]"
QuackGuru (
talk)
02:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Tertiary sources are not reliable in this context. Do note how that section notes that these kinds of sources "may be valuable" not that they are automagically reliable as you seem to indicate. --
Kim D. Petersen03:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
A position statement is a tertiary source, not a secondary. And while scientific reports from such organizations can reach the level of formal reviews, the rest aren't, and this one isn't. Finally "Service announcements" are not reliable to the level of secondary reviews. Context matters, and reliability is contextual. --
Kim D. Petersen17:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
You claim a position statement is unreliable and "service announcements" are not reliable. Your argument is against MEDRS because MEDRS states "The reliability of these sources range from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals, through public guides and service announcements,..." I explained
this before that even "service announcements" are reliable according to MEDRS for organisations.
QuackGuru (
talk)
17:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
This is a problem, to state a medical claim you need a review. This press release is not a reliable source for this article and the way you want to use it. Reliability, in some form does not guarantee inclusion in an article.
WP:ONUS. Your repeated rephrasing, and trying to put words into the mouths of other editors by mischaracterizing what has been posted here is not going to change the facts that its a press release.
AlbinoFerret17:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
AlbinoFerret claims "This is a problem, to state a medical claim you need a review." This is a false. Organisations such as this one are reliable. Another organisation you deleted is also
reliable. You have a pattern of deleting organisations and then claiming on the talk page the source must be a "review".
You just dont get it, or hear it
WP:IDHT. Reliability is just one factor in inclusion. Sources can be reliable for some things and not for others. A press release is not suitable for making a medical claim, a medical review is whats needed.
AlbinoFerret17:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Per that link "The reliability of these sources range from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals, through public guides and service announcements, which have the advantage of being freely readable, but are generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature. This source is no way on par with a review, its a press release, not a formal report. Press releases are not even mentioned. You are misrepresenting that section, and mischaracterizing what the source is.
AlbinoFerret18:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
You may want to read
WP:MEDRS#Definitions for the difference between primary,secondary and tertiary sources. And the rationale for not using tertiary sources. It would be rather nice if you'd figure out that we are talking about tertiary vs. secondary - instead of the simplistic reliable or not. --
Kim D. Petersen 18:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC) (and of course you once more ignore that there is a general consensus on only using secondary review MEDRS sources for medical information on electronic cigarette articles --
Kim D. Petersen18:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC))
That was a formal policy statement in a peer reviewed journal, not a press release. You still have not addressed this as a tertiary source.
AlbinoFerret18:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
This is off topic for this section, but the source that was removed had other issues, including COI and Original research by syntheses. The reliability of that source is compromized by the fact the writers accepted funding and serve on the board of directors of pharmaceutical companies. I still think it should be removed but it seems others are disregarding the facts and replace it. The source in question in this section is a tertiary source, and is not included in the section you continue to link to, it is a failed argument that you continue not to hear. It is "generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature." less than a review, less than even a study, which cant be used either.
AlbinoFerret19:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
"The reliability of these sources range from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals, through public guides and service announcements, which have the advantage of being freely readable, but are generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature." This source does not need to be on par with a review according to
Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Medical_and_scientific_organizations.
QuackGuru (
talk)
19:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
According to consensus on e-cig articles it does need to be a review to make a medical claim. The quote even questions its usage. It says those sources "can" and not "they are" they vary from those equalling a review to those not. Those formal policy statements may be used, they may not per
WP:ONUS, the lesser tertiary sources should not be used to make some claims, like medical claims. Now before any other topic address this as a tertiary source. This is going round in circles and you are avoiding a direct question.
AlbinoFerret19:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
You want to ignore WP:MEDRS and now go with WP:ONUS for any source that is not a "review". Because organisations are not always on par with reviews does not make them not usable according to MEDRS. You need to address this as a reliable source like other reputable organisations. You should stop suggesting the general consensus is to only use "reviews".
QuackGuru (
talk)
20:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Now before any other topic address this as a tertiary source. This is going round in circles and you are avoiding a direct question.
AlbinoFerret21:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
(
edit conflict)Are you serious? You may want to look up how tertiary sources, no matter their reliability should be used in Wikipedia
WP:Tertiary. I'm not in the mood of following you down the strawman argument of what kind of tertiary source is more reliable than another tertiary source - since we shouldn't be using tertiary sources in the first place. --
Kim D. Petersen21:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Quack, you either are not understanding this issue, its a reading comprehension issue, or your just not hearing what has been said. Here it is boiled down. Sources are reliable for some things and not others. Sources can be reliable for one thing and not another. The source you are trying to use is perfectly acceptable for a position statement of an organization on a non medical page like Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes. Just like a medical source isnt appropriate on the Legal page. But it is not a review quality source. It is not reliable on e-cig articles to make medical claims. You keep going back to reliability, but reliability isnt black or white, but shades. The NY Times is reliable, but I cant use it to make medical claims. A study may be in a reliable source, but I cant use the source to make medical claims. A medical source may be reliable, but I cant use it on the Legal page to make regulatory statements. This continued arguing about reliability as if its black or white, or the sole deciding factor in inclusion is wrong.
WP:ONUS "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. " We have spent enough time on this to help you understand. I have assumed good faith, but I am starting to wonder if there are other motivations at play here.
AlbinoFerret22:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
By consensus, yes it does.
WP:ONUS, "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. "
AlbinoFerret23:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
The discussion is about MEDRS in reference to whether the source is reliable. ONUS is about V. These are two different things. You are both arguing the source is unreliable because it is not a review. But MEDRS never says for reputable organisations the source must be a review. I did address the tertiary nature of the source. A statement from reputable organisation can be a tertiary source or less than a tertiary source and still be reliable according to
Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Medical_and_scientific_organizations. For example, I previously explained that even a service announcement from reputable organization is reliable according to
Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes. That is the reason there is an article with lots of tertiary sources making medical claims at
Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes. Since you both have not shown how this reputable organization is unreliable you should respect MEDRS. Suggesting that ONUS should trump MEDRS when the source is reliable is not productive, especially without a specific reason to what is the issue with the text. Is the real issue you both don't seem to like what the source is stating? Is there any position statement from a reputable organization you will acknowledge as reliable and usable? Do you understand this source does not need to be on par with a review to be reliable and usable?
QuackGuru (
talk)
16:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
This whole section has me wondering about your
WP:COMPETENCE to edit WP. You cant split
WP:RS and and
WP:VER.
WP:VER and
WP:RS are two sides of the same coin. I suggest you read
WP:VER and notice that they both use the same noticeboard and that reliability is covered on that page. You cant have a reliable source if it isnt verifiable.
WP:VER is a core policy
WP:CCPOL that
WP:RS falls under.
You dont seem to understand the difference in how different types of sources can be used. You point to one page that has a different point of view on the topic and expect because a source can be used there it can be used everywhere. It cant, thats why
WP:ONUS exists, its part of the
WP:VER page, a core policy, you cant disregard it. We have tried and tried to explain it to you. But you keep going round in circles. This isnt the first time this has come up on your part,
it also came up on the Legal page. Its starting to look like a pattern. You are missing the fine details and in the process you are trying to force a square peg into a round hole, and I have to question the motive behind that. Reliability does not guarantee inclusion. What can be used on one page may not be suitable for another, per
WP:ONUS "Consensus may determine that certain information.... or presented instead in a different article." You are
beating the dead horse and this is becoming
disruptive behaviour from your side.
AlbinoFerret17:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
You have wasted enough of my time. Per Kim "it can be safely stated that
WP:Silence does not apply to further arguments of this kind from your side." You do not have consensus for any of the edits in this section.
AlbinoFerret18:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Please read the comments by
User:Yobol.
[9] Yobol stated "To include medical information, we need to use
WP:MEDRS compliant sources, which include statements by major medical organizations. This source clears that MEDRS bar, and is reliable for use for medical information, especially when in-text attributed to that organization. Suggestions that statements by medical organizations do not meed MEDRS are simply hogwash."
[10] "Again, you all are making up your own rules and "consensus" again."
[11] See
Talk:Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes/Archive_1#Removal_of_claim_tied_to_a_press_release.
QuackGuru (
talk)
19:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
WP:ONUS Reliability does not guarantee inclusion. In this case the source was not a
WP:MEDRS review and was unsuitable to make medical claims by long standing precedent and consensus.
AlbinoFerret01:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
You deleted
this source too but the source is reliable. There is a long standing precedent and consensus that these types of organisations are reliable. See Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes page for lots of reliable sources.
QuackGuru (
talk)
02:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
AlbinoFerret claims "Remove WMA statement that is not a review and makes a medical claim. Per long standing agreement on e-cig pages medical claims must be sourced to a WP:MEDRS review".
[15] However, the "source is MEDRS compliant".
[16]. There is no long standing agreement on e-cig pages medical claims must be sourced to a "review". Editors should not make up there own rules and "consensus" again.
[17]QuackGuru (
talk)
19:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
The quote above is about cessation. But there is other info about safety from the source. I already added it to my sandbox.
QuackGuru (
talk)
16:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Page protection
I've protected this page (fully) for 7 days. I seriously contemplated simply blocking the 3-4 edit warriors but thought we could go this route to encourage continued discussion. If the edit warring continues post-protection, other methods may be used.
Rjd0060 (
talk)
22:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
AlbinoFerret is continuing to delete reliable sources from position statements from reputable organisations. AlbinoFerret also deleted a number of sources including reviews without a specific objection on the talk page. See
Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettes#Positions. Most editors disagree with AlbinoFerret at the RfC. See
WP:SNOW.
User:Bbb23 blocked AlbinoFerret for violating the three-revert rule at the Safety of electronic cigarettes page.
[18]
No, as detailed above you have quietly gone about building a 20,000 odd character edit alone for a couple of weeks, gone ahead and inserted it without so much as notification on the talk page let alone discussion or any attempt to reach consensus. And then when this conduct is brought into question, elected to try and deflect the blame with personal attacks against another editor on the article talk page.
Levelledout (
talk)
15:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't have this article on my watchlist, but I was pinged twice by QuackGuru, so I thought I'd make a brief comment. I endorse
Rjd0060's protection and his threat of blocks if the edit-warring continues after protection expires.--
Bbb23 (
talk)
22:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
User:AlbinoFerret claims "You have not discussed one edit in the 19k characters you inserted."
[28] But I did discuss sources User:AlbinoFerret deleted.
[29] The response was "Reliability does not guarantee inclusion."
[30] That is not a specific objection for excluding relevant information. User:AlbinoFerret is not here to improve this page IMO. How is deleting numerous reliable sources improving this page?
QuackGuru (
talk)
22:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I just wanted to add that despite strong interest in the content and keeping well abreast of the developing scientific opinion on this topic I stopped editing any e-cigarette related page pretty much entirely because QuackGuru's behaviour in editing made it too draining to bother. Yes AF has strong opinions and if left unchecked by community consensus would probably result in a page with questionable NPOV status but he always discusses his edits, always invites argument and always responds to the argument presented. QG on the other hand has an opinion of what these articles should look like that in totam is divergent from consensus and just tries to steamroller changes in. Long term protection seems to be the only way to encourage QG to discuss things and even then he just repeats his "I didn't hear that" at every objection. What all the e-cig pages need is a massive haircut but it won't happen while QG can edit because either QG will add massive amounts of repetition or AF will feel NPOV being violated by imbalanced edits and re-instate positions. Sorry, mostly just venting here.
SPACKlick (
talk)
14:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, welcome to the club. There are a dozen or more editors here that have long ago given up any effort to keep this article reflective of the consensus of reliable sources because of the presence of e-cigarette advocates who sit on the article 10 hours a day and make it impossible for anyone not willing to do the same to have an impact. The problem is only exacerbated by canvassing for additional such advocates on other websites.
Formerly 98 (
talk)
15:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I ask you politely to please refrain from using terms like "e-cigarette advocate" as it is derogatory in this context and only inflames the situation. Also remember that it takes two to tango and that the likes of QG are most definitely not on the "e-cigarette advocate" side.
Levelledout (
talk)
15:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
If you have any evidence of canvassing bring it to the relevant WP boards. I'm not saying that advocates are vociferous on these articles but I disagree that they've had anything like the anti-consensus impact you're implying. However I don't want to rehash the old arguments again.
SPACKlick (
talk)
15:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Yup we have had some blocks due to paid editing / canvassing. Evidence of these sorts of activities is hard to verify. Thus best to stick to what the best quality sources say.
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email)
20:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
That is way too anecdotal to take seriously in my opinion, primarily because I can't find any reports of other ecig-related injuries at all. It's just another of the occasional lithium battery explosions which are commonplace because high density lithium cells have become so ubiquitous and cheaply manufactured. Cell phone and laptop users get much worse of the same.
EllenCT (
talk)
21:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Formaldehyde
Claims of exposure to chemicals, including formaldehyde are medical claims. This requires a
WP:MEDRS secondary source like a review. I have removed a claim here that used a "Correspondence" or letter to the journal as a source.
diff This is not a
WP:MEDRS secondary source.
AlbinoFerret
I'm uncomfortable with this. I would rather that the MEDRS guideline be used to err on the side of caution than exclude such warnings, even if they are based on brand new research.
EllenCT (
talk)
23:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Letters to a publication are never good enough for medical claims. The study on which it is based is flawed. It used a modern adjustable power source, and an old style atomizer with known wicking problems. Then they ran the battery at voltages never contemplated with the atomizer. This produced not vapor, but combustion. Dr Farsalinos, a known expert on ecigs has already
spoken on this topic.AlbinoFerret00:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree, seeing the cause now. How disappointing that the anti-ecig faction has attempted to use such nonsense. Thank you.
EllenCT (
talk)
22:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Then the search is off topic for the discussion, which was on a letter to a journal on a flawed study. Said study is at the top of your search.
AlbinoFerret21:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree that presents a solid argument against adjustable voltage ecigs, and should be included discussing those models. But I hope you agree that "in most cases, the levels are lower than those in tobacco cigarette smoke" is a rather essential part of the Conclusion.
EllenCT (
talk)
22:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
"The compositions and concentrations of these compounds vary depending on the type of e-liquid and the battery voltage.... carbonyl compounds were incidentally generated by touching the nichrome wire with e-liquid and increasing the battery output voltage.... Furthermore, battery output voltage affects the concentration of the carbonyl compounds in the emission....
Kosmider et al. showed that increasing the voltage from 3.2–4.8 V resulted in a 4 to >200 times increase in the formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and acetone levels.... battery output voltage significantly [affected] the concentration of carbonyl compounds in the e-cigarette aerosol. As such, high-voltage e-cigarettes may expose users to high levels of carbonyl compounds.... The amounts of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde in e-cigarette aerosols at a lower voltage were on average 13 and 807-fold lower than those in traditional cigarette smoke, respectively."
EllenCT (
talk)
23:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
"by far a less harmful alternative to smoking and significant health benefits are expected"
In all of the 13 references to the
PMC 4110871 MEDRS review, why is there no representation of this sentence? "Currently available evidence indicates that electronic cigarettes are by far a less harmful alternative to smoking and significant health benefits are expected in smokers who switch from tobacco to electronic cigarettes."
EllenCT (
talk)
22:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
"A 2014 systematic review concluded that the risks of e-cigarettes have been exaggerated by health authorities and stated that it is apparent that there may be some remaining risk accompanied with e-cigarette use, though the risk of e-cigarette use is likely small compared to smoking tobacco.[7]" It is in the article.
QuackGuru (
talk)
22:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
"Risk ... is likely small" doesn't correctly reflect "by far less harmful". Nor is there any representation of "significant health benefits are expected in smokers who switch."
EllenCT (
talk)
15:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
The part "is likely small" is summarising a different part of the source. The part "significant health benefits are expected in smokers who switch" is probably a better fit for
Electronic cigarette#Harm reduction. I will try to summarise the part "by far less harmful" in the body.
QuackGuru (
talk)
17:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm done with adding the part "by far less harmful" to my sandbox. I rewrote the text and added in-text attribution.
QuackGuru (
talk)
17:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Sure we have a range of sources that take different perspectives. A summary is "The limited evidence suggests that e-cigarettes are probably safer than traditional cigarettes"
Safety needs to be considered on both a population and an individual basis. If e-cigs renormalize smoking and end up increasing the use of traditional cigs they cause harm.
If a single individual switches from tradition cigs to e-cigs it results in benefit. If a non smoker starts e-cigs it will result in harm.
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email)
17:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
No, the sources with which you agree are summarized accurately, and you are trying to keep the sources with which you disagree from being summarized correctly. Has it occurred to you that someone in your position should be held to a higher standard of impartiality than ordinary editors?
EllenCT (
talk)
20:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Strongly disagree. There is no scientific definition of what a "chemical constituent" even is (as everything is made of chemicals), let alone agreement that "chemical constituents" is a synonym for toxicant.
Formerly 98 (
talk)
02:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
The paragraph is titled "Chemical Constituents".
[33] Then they explain about the "toxicants". I'd rather use a neutral word rather than poisons.
QuackGuru (
talk)
02:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, it may be in the source, but its incorrect. I'd challenge you to name a non-chemical constituent of any material or object.
Formerly 98 (
talk)
02:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
The paragraph is titled "Chemical Constituents" but the specific text says "toxicants". I went ahead and changed the word.
QuackGuru (
talk)
03:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
On a semi related note, where in the source can I find that using e-cigarettes exposes people to lethel doses of nicotine as this claim says "There are safety issues to being exposed to potentially lethal nicotine from e-cigarette use.[12]"
AlbinoFerret03:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Dual use of e-cigs and cigarettes increases chances of smoking cessation by up to 320%. The
evidence is stacking up. When is this shambles of an article going to start reflecting it?--
InfiniteBratwurst (
talk)
11:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
You need to give it time for the evidence to filter through to secondary sources. There are several interesting meta-analyses expected later this year. I think the first step in de-shambles~ing the article would be writing what is already there in clearer language.
SPACKlick (
talk)
11:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree. We don't need to mention every single study, even if it doesn't say anything worthwhile. The whole environmental impact section needs to go for example, because it doesn't say anything about environmental impact. Given what's actually known it should really be a pretty short article.--
InfiniteBratwurst (
talk)
19:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with deleting entire relevant paragraphs. I just added a more concise paragraph about nicotine and expanded the page a bit.
QuackGuru (
talk)
01:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
The last thing this article needs is expanding. What it needs is a drastic pruning to get rid of all the he said/she said rubbish. Just because a study exists does not mean its conclusions - especially if they boil down to "We don't know" - are worthy of including in the article. Please stop adding trivia.--
InfiniteBratwurst (
talk)
17:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Intro needs a big trim and tidy
Regardless of all the other issues, this article is marred by a very poor intro. The main fault is that its chock full of heavily ref'd arguments back and forth - when it should be a simple summary of the contents of the body. Keep the detail and refs down there. I intend to have a look at tidying it up when the protection is lifted.
Snori (
talk)
09:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I feel it's important we keep the references, just because it is so contentious of a topic (see
WP:LEDE). As for cutting it down, please do! --
CFCF🍌 (
email)
11:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
User:Snori, this
change is
WP:OR and does not summarise the body. For example, "Electronic cigarettes were first been developed in 2003" is not about safety. The part "The safety of electronic cigarettes is an ongoing area of debate." is unsourced.
QuackGuru (
talk)
19:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Chill out. I'm working on getting some wording together and doing this in my userspace/sandbox because that's convenient. Although you can clearly see that area, I don't think it's helpful for you or anyone else to comment on it while it's underway, because it will undoubtedly be initially far worse that the current lead. Thanks for the offer, but I also don't think it makes much sense for me to edit in your area.
Snori (
talk)
19:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
This is the fifth time I have been summoned to this article by a RfC. When I first saw it the article was poor, and it continues to get worse. It is very long and unclear, containing no information accessible to the ordinary reader, who may well have an valid interest in the subject. It appears to be written, not for ordinary readers, not even for ordinary doctors, but for specialists in the field. I wish it could be much shorter, and say something like this:
"Electronic cigarettes are a danger to health because they administer nicotine, a toxic and addictive substance which can cause < list of diseases, with references >. However, those who are addicted to nicotine may prefer them to tobacco-based cigarettes, which as well as nicotine also administer tar and < list of other chemicals, with references >, which can cause lung cancer and < list of other diseases, with references >."
I also agree that the lede needs a lot of work. Its overly difficult to read and complex. Per
WP:LEAD the lede should be easy to read and have the major controversies, but it should be more neutral that the edit you suggest.
AlbinoFerret13:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
No, the lede does not need a lot of work. You have not pointed out what is the specific issue. The lede should be four paragraphs per
WP:LEADLENGTH for this lengthy article.
QuackGuru (
talk)
18:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes 4 paragraphs is appropriate for an article of this length (ignoring whether or not the article should be trimmed) but that is a general guideline—but not absolute rule. It should also provide an accessible overview per
MOS:INTRO, Assess material based on relative importance to the subject of the article per
MOS:BEGIN and also should tell the nonspecialist reader what (or who) the subject is. The real issue with it is that it is badly written. I would also say that there is some weight issue in the distribution of information. It's poorly written and like the whole article suffers from repetition and bloat.
SPACKlick (
talk)
19:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
User:Maproom, the source says "Consequently, safety concerns exist regarding e-cigarette user exposure to harmful and potentially harmful constituents (HPHCs), including nicotine, which has the potential to cause addiction and other adverse events."
[34] For the lede I kept the wording concise. The lede now says "There are safety issues to being exposed to potentially lethal nicotine from e-cigarette use.[12]"
[35]QuackGuru (
talk)
03:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I tweaked the wording. It now says "There are safety issues to e-cigarette users from being exposed to potentially lethal nicotine.[12]"
QuackGuru (
talk)
03:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
"There are safety issues to e-cigarette users from being exposed to potentially
lethalnicotine." Ref to: Cheng, T. (2014). "Chemical evaluation of electronic cigarettes". Tobacco Control 23 (Supplement 2): ii11–ii17. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051482. ISSN 0964-4563. PMC 3995255.
PMID24732157.
- Unfortunately I can see nothing in Cheng to justify "potentially lethal" at all, as two others have now pointed out.
Johnbod (
talk)
03:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
The source says "...safety concerns exist regarding e-cigarette user exposure to harmful and potentially harmful constituents (HPHCs), including nicotine...".
QuackGuru (
talk)
03:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
The question is, why did you change it to "potentially lethal" in the first place? Because that fails
WP:V and looks a lot like POV pushing, doesn't it?--
InfiniteBratwurst (
talk)
19:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I think the real question is, can anyone phrase "There are safety issues to e-cigarette users..." in English? maybe "Some have safety concerns over users being exposed to potentially harmful nicotine" or "there are safety concerns over..." or "There are potential dangers from..." Because it's currently worded really unreadably.
SPACKlick (
talk)
07:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
That is awkward, isn't it. Hrm. Perhaps "concerns the product isn't safe" or "concerns the product presents risks to"? Better yet, put it in an active voice: "health and safety experts are concerned about risks from"?
Cloudjpk (
talk)
21:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that adresses the point at all. "Exposed to potentially harmful nicotine" is very different from "Experts are concerned about several potential risks from the product" I like Cloudjpk's "health and safety experts are concerned about risks from" but it will need a ref for health and safety experts (experts could be changed for proffessionals, bodies etc as apt for ref)
SPACKlick (
talk)
10:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Quack added a ton, all without discussing any of it.
diff He added position statements, which are still being discussed as additions in the above RFC.
AlbinoFerret23:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Since the RFC is only days old, it is way to soon to draw conclusions. Large changes should be discussed before making the edits. Not just that some sources but specifically whats to be added. 17,450 characters isnt just large, its huge. Making it all at one time is another problem, discuss changes first and in manageable pieces.
AlbinoFerret13:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Clearly the whole point in having an RFC is to determine consensus. But what QG is saying is that even though the RFC is nowhere near finished they can determine the consensus themselves. Therefore there's no need for an uninvolved editor to come in, close the RFC and determine consensus because QG can just do it themselves. Not only that they can perform yet another massive edit on that basis. Rigghttt....
Levelledout (
talk)
14:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
This is a tempest in a teapot. You guys are getting buried in your attempt to override major Wikipedia sourcing guidelines via a local RFc, and even if you had succeeded you'd have been reversed in administrative review. Maybe best to save your ammo for a fight in which you have a defensible position and are not massively outnumbered.
Formerly 98 (
talk)
15:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Of course. The RFC has its uses but overriding major Wikipedia sourcing guidelines is not one of them. It would nice to move forward here.
Cloudjpk (
talk)
19:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually I haven't even really looked at the RFC in detail. All I have noticed is that a particular editor, not for the first time, comes along and makes a massive edit and then gives the reason above to justify it which is not a valid one. The edit as usual contains highly contentious, vague, partisan statements. Sourcing guidelines are not the be-all-and-end-all of Wikipedia and even the sourcing guidelines themselves state that compliance does not guarantee inclusion. Regardless of sourcing, neutrality has to respected and consensus has to be sought. You can't trump those things either. So no actually, I don't think its justified to ignore an ongoing RFC merely because something complies with one particular guideline.
Levelledout (
talk)
23:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
By reverting the entire edit you are attributing
WP:BADFAITH, and are improperly removing viable content because you disapprove of including a minor portion of it. There is nothing that stands against making major edits, and studies have been provided that show that most Wikipedia content is made through major edits. --
CFCF🍌 (
email)
23:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Where is the discussion of the edits? And quite a bit of this mammoth edit is referencing the sources that are under discussion at the RfC. And since it is quite obvious from the fact that it gets reverted that the edits are controversial. It is indeed
WP:BADFAITH to keep inserting it against consensus and in the face of a running RfC. I would suggest that editors try to add/discuss individual additions that are not part of the running RfC - instead of doing massive insertions that they know that there isn't consensus for! --
Kim D. Petersen23:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree, smaller edits should be brought up in discussion and then the discussion can lead to an edit. These mammoth edits are hard to break apart. Quack did this in secret,
building a huge edit in his sandbox without any discussion and dumping it in all at once. He had more than enough opportunity to bring the edits up in pieces seeing how he started building on Feb 10th.
AlbinoFerret02:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
You misunderstand when you use the term secret. The sole reason for the
WP:Sandbox is for experimenting without disturbing main space content, and using it is not per se contentious as you seem to assume. If you believe any of the individual statements are subject to the RfC you should take them up appropriately, instead of blanket deleting major additions. --
CFCF🍌 (
email)
10:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
No,, this wasnt just experimenting. 16 days of building on edits without discussion is a real problem when you are planning on making a mammoth edit. This wasnt perfecting the way it looks in a few hours and then adding a little bit to the article. This was just adding, and adding day after day without discussing it with any editor and then dumping 16,414 characters into the article. You cant put lipstick on that pig.
AlbinoFerret12:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
The size is irrelevant? I dont think so, its about 1/4th of the present articles size.
WP:CAUTIOUS deals with this, its policy to discuss major changes to the article. 16,414 characters is more than the definition of a major change. It isnt just because its to large, its just good practice to discuss edits. Making them smaller to make discussions easer is the best way to get inclusion, unless you want to discuss this for a long time because of a lack of focus. But specific edits still have not been brought forth.
AlbinoFerret13:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
The size of the edit is irrelevant as an argument against it, at least as long as no individual concerns have been raised. Start by actually commenting on what you disagree with in the edit if you wish to dispute it. --
CFCF🍌 (
email)
21:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
QuackGuru added about 19k characters of edits without discussion, including one 16k character edit. What is the consensus for keeping the edit? It is against
WP:CAUTIOUS and should have been discussed.
AlbinoFerret06:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
The edits themselves were never discussed. A majority of the sources were never discussed, and none were discussed before adding them.
AlbinoFerret18:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
It isnt just not liking the material. There are issues with some of the sources, currently the subject of a RFC. There are also NPOV issues. There is a
WP:CAUTIOUS issue in that a mammoth edit was done without any discussion or consensus.
AlbinoFerret22:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
This section adds nothing to the article. It's basically just speculation, as shown by the endless repetition of "no studies have been conducted into...". I propose that we remove it until some actual research has been done.--
InfiniteBratwurst (
talk)
18:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Support - This section says nothing. It's 100% speculation and the reference itself admits it isn't based on any research, so it's not a secondary source.--
InfiniteBratwurst (
talk)
23:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose per Doc James. The concerns are from quality secondary sources, they should not be downplayed because they are unsubstantiated when they make no secret of it. --
CFCF🍌 (
email)
22:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
None of which support the claims you made in the article, because those are all "No research has been conducted into..." That section adds nothing and should be removed until there is some research.--
InfiniteBratwurst (
talk)
01:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Every sentence starts "No research has been conducted into..." or "Nothing is known about...". Therefore this is not a secondary source. The section says nothing. I think you have
WP:OWN issues with it.--
InfiniteBratwurst (
talk)
11:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
It is too long and should be the last section of all. That's if we think that "Environmental Impact" is actually a "safety" issue at all. I suspect that we don't so treat it for other products.
Johnbod (
talk)
04:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Agree with this. "Known unknowns" may be notable as Doc James says above, but is it really necessary to go into quite as much detail about these quite specific type of unknowns as we have done, all drawn practically from one single source? I suspect not. One or two sentences summing up the most important points would probably suffice, if environmental impact is relevant to the article that is. If not it probably belongs in the main one.
Levelledout (
talk)
00:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
^
abEngland, Lucinda J.; Bunnell, Rebecca E.; Pechacek, Terry F.; Tong, Van T.; McAfee, Tim A. (2015). "Nicotine and the Developing Human". American Journal of Preventive Medicine.
doi:
10.1016/j.amepre.2015.01.015.
ISSN0749-3797.
PMID25794473.
Cases of individuals being injured by exploding lithium batteries have also been reported in the news. Some lithium batteries are poorly designed, contain low-quality materials, or have manufacturing flaws and defects. Improper use and handling of these batteries can contribute to thermal runaway, where the internal battery temperature increases and causes fires or explosions.35 Some of these explosions have resulted in house and car fires and severe skin burns.
You mean all the usual issues of lithium battery ownership, yawn, why not just put all of this on the relevant page
Lithium battery and then link there with a one liner "usual risks of
lithium batteries"
Effect on Bystanders
Hajek makes the wider claim that any effect on bystanders would be likely much less harmful than tobacco cigarettes if it's harmful at all. This claim should be included with the claim about exposing bystanders to toxins to avoid NPOV.
SPACKlick (
talk)
02:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)