| Revision as of 17:38, 11 March 2012 editEquazcion (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers41,926 edits →break: re← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:59, 14 March 2012 edit undoHopping (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,073 edits adding to WP MEDNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{WPMED}} | |||
| {{old peer review|archive=1}} | {{old peer review|archive=1}} | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
Revision as of 03:59, 14 March 2012
 | Medicine Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Electronic cigarette received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
"overstated"
Since gadget compatibility here seems to only be temporary, let me clarify my edit summary:
"overstated" here refers to people's claims, the one who are raising concerns over appeal to non-smokers. It doesn't describe an absolute fact. I've added "possibly" to the statement to clarify this. Equazcion 02:13, 30 Mar 2011 (UTC)
Suggestions
Suggest redirecting people searching for specific brands such as e-lites to this page
BHGobuchul (talk) 14:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Inventor of electronic cigarettes
While many believe Hon Lik was the original inventor of electronic cigarettes, this is in fact untrue. An American named Herbert Gilbert, of Beaver Falls, PA actually invented the first iteration of the electronic cigarette, and received a patent for his invention in 1965. The patent was for a "Smokeless Non-Tobacco Cigarette, Patent No. 3,200,819 and issued on August 17, 1965. Several other parties, including Philip Morris, Procter & Gamble and R.J. Reynolds were all issued patents in the early 1980s for electronic cigarette products. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam esq (talk • contribs) 02:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Children? Really?
In paragraph three, suggesting that eCig companies are marketing to children is insupportable. The product in question requires a significant initial investment, and then regular access to credit cards and physical shipping addresses. Further,marketing efforts do not appear in any mainstream source catering to minors. I suggest that this passage is an appeal to emotion, rather than a credible statement.
Are we truly to believe that "children" have the ability to order illicit (for their age) products, pay for said products, and orchestrate delivery in such a fashion that their parents remain unaware? Further, the use of "children" as opposed to the more appropriate "teens" or even "adolescents" is a transparent attempt to evoke an emotional response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.227.73 (talk) 00:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- I did some editing in the first section to conform with WP:WTW but did not remove "children." My reasoning is that reference #45 quotes a lawmaker being concerned with the appeal to children. So it is acceptable to note this.Vnarfhuhwef (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Comparison to real cigarettes
Can someone include a section on how an ecig compares to a real cigarette in terms of taste? It seems odd that this article is missing that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gold333 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- I think the reason that info is absent is because it's so subjective. There could be reliable sources that discuss that comparison, if someone can find them. Equazcion 12:12, 1 Mar 2012 (UTC)
"possibly overstated claims of safety"
Nope, that's not one and I believe he's talking about the somewhat discredited FDA study though we don't know. Which manufacturer made what claims? What chemical are they talking about? Under "Safety of liquid bases" it clearly states the main chemical in use is safe and has been used for years. Even nicotine is optional and many suppliers don't even sell it. This is about the device in general and in general manufacturers don't claim such things so to include that in the first section is misleading. Jurrut (talk) 14:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- Electronic cigarettes are marketed as a safer alternative to smoking, and even if you want to say the marketer's intentions are arguable, that's still the root of the controversy surrounding electronic cigarettes; and it's the point of most of this article. All the claims of possible harm and possible safety in the legal and health sections are a result of that, otherwise they wouldn't be there. The statement in the intro just summarizes all the controversy detailed in the rest of the sections, as leads are meant to do. I don't know that there's any source that points to particular manufacturers as making claims of safety, as most of them point to a general marketing trend instead. Equazcion 14:49, 10 Mar 2012 (UTC)
- This article is not about the controversy and nor is it about the dangers of the additives. It's about a generic device. We wouldn't include problems with a model of car in the automobile page. Safer is also a very different claim to safe. Someone is claiming those trends exist and that's what is needed, not just someone repeating them. Even then it has to be widespread enough to be worthy of inclusion (especially in the lead), not just fringe examples and also widespread enough that it's accurate in describing the whole industry. Unsupported attributions are not ok. Jurrut (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- "Someone repeating them" is what Misplaced Pages relies on. If a reliable source says something, we do generally consider that acceptable for our content. You're talking about WP:Primary sources, which are actually considered less reliable. Equazcion 16:21, 10 Mar 2012 (UTC)
- A Q&A blog is not a reliable source and nor are third or fourth hand accounts that claim a fact exists, but don't actually know who made those claims. Jurrut (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- I changed the ref. I haven't noted any "third or fourth hand accounts", but secondary ones, which are what we use for Misplaced Pages articles. You might also want to look at WP:Synthesis -- using refs to actual manufacturers' or retailers' claims in order to make a broad statement isn't allowed, since reasonably we want to know that a reliable source made the assessment rather than Misplaced Pages editors. Equazcion 16:43, 10 Mar 2012 (UTC)
- Discovery is known for their journalism?
- I changed the ref. I haven't noted any "third or fourth hand accounts", but secondary ones, which are what we use for Misplaced Pages articles. You might also want to look at WP:Synthesis -- using refs to actual manufacturers' or retailers' claims in order to make a broad statement isn't allowed, since reasonably we want to know that a reliable source made the assessment rather than Misplaced Pages editors. Equazcion 16:43, 10 Mar 2012 (UTC)
- A Q&A blog is not a reliable source and nor are third or fourth hand accounts that claim a fact exists, but don't actually know who made those claims. Jurrut (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- "Someone repeating them" is what Misplaced Pages relies on. If a reliable source says something, we do generally consider that acceptable for our content. You're talking about WP:Primary sources, which are actually considered less reliable. Equazcion 16:21, 10 Mar 2012 (UTC)
- This article is not about the controversy and nor is it about the dangers of the additives. It's about a generic device. We wouldn't include problems with a model of car in the automobile page. Safer is also a very different claim to safe. Someone is claiming those trends exist and that's what is needed, not just someone repeating them. Even then it has to be widespread enough to be worthy of inclusion (especially in the lead), not just fringe examples and also widespread enough that it's accurate in describing the whole industry. Unsupported attributions are not ok. Jurrut (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- There's only one single sentence in that new ref that comes close and that doesn't say they're overstated claims of safety but unsubstantiated health claims (apparently pro-health, not negative given she mentions vitamins). If it was the December last year the research she's talking about was watching Youtube video's, literally. If she meant December the year before it's on there for you to see it doesn't say that as well as the extent of her research which was very much specific to the brands she chose, not the industry as a whole (this ford's oil is leaking etc). Considering she's funded by an anti-tobacco group her claims have to be taken with the same degree of scepticism we give pro-ends studies.
- http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/search?author1=Prue+Talbot&sortspec=date&submit=Submit
- Here's another article on her that claim except in this one she only tested five brands however as they acknowledge, the primary source gave them the press release to print.
- http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101203141932.htm
- And another that makes a very interesting claim especially considering we do know all about propylene glycol.
- http://www.gizmag.com/study-finds-electronic-cigarettes-pose-health-risk/17206/ Jurrut (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- The claim we're looking to cite here isn't that electronic cigarettes are unhealthy -- only that the topic is controversial. Specifically you asked for a ref regarding the claim that people have pointed to overstated claims of safety in their marketing, as is my understanding, and this ref does show that. As for the reliability of Discovery, whether or not you agree that its journalism is top-notch, it (at least their news site) fits Misplaced Pages's standards regarding reliable sources. See WP:RS. Equazcion 18:43, 10 Mar 2012 (UTC)
- That ref points to overstated claims of health benefits, not safety and as I said one sentence is grossly insufficient to make such a claim regarding an entire industry. This is only about whether that claim is verifiable, accurate and made by a reputable source. That's not the case. Jurrut (talk) 04:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- I thought if something is beneficial to your health then that would indicate it's safe too. Anyway I added more refs. Let me know if that's enough yet, I can get more. Equazcion 09:38, 11 Mar 2012 (UTC)
- No benefits have nothing to do with safety. Still none of those articles support that claim however a suitable compromise would be what those do say. Something along the lines of "Concerns exist among medical professionals and researchers due to the lack of evidence regarding the aerosol inhaled and any additives used while anti-smoking groups have stated it could appeal...." though it would mean reworking that paragraph. The first two new refs do support that statement (and would be easy to find many more) but the third is rather dodgy so best to just drop it. Inclusion of the "unsubstantiated health benefits" regarding vitamin additives would also be good but that's probably better further down the page and stating which researcher said it (and the manufacturer if there's only one). In the second article, health.com, Dr Cobb makes a statement (page 2) about his research and levels of nicotine which should be included further down the page. Jurrut (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- The articles begin with the premise that e-cigs are claimed to be healthy alternatives to smoking (eg. "Makers of e-cigs tout their product as the first healthy cigarette...," from the CNN article, "healthy"), and go on to examine both sides of that claim. We're just seeking to summarize that controversy, and I think "possibly overstated claims of safety" does that pretty succinctly. If something is "safe", that does tend to translate to "healthy" in this context, no? I'm not seeing the problem. Equazcion 14:56, 11 Mar 2012 (UTC)
- No it doesn't they're two very different claims. Being healthy does mean it's safe but being safe does not mean it's healthy. That CNN article also says they only contain pure nicotine aka it's rubbish so it's best to lose that one. Jurrut (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- Then in this context it's an apt substitute. The point we're trying to get across is that there are claims that e-cigs are actually healthy, which may or may not be true -- it could be an overstatement of safety. Even the ones who claim e-cigs are "very safe" or "safer than regular cigarettes" are in dispute. And we're not in any position as Misplaced Pages editors to say we have better information than a CNN article, at least not without citing another source claiming that. See WP:V. Equazcion 15:15, 11 Mar 2012 (UTC)
- It's not and there's no need for any substitute, say what it says, not what you want. We most certainly are in a position to dismiss that claim as nonsense and the entire article as very questionable because of that. Not verifiable, not supported by mainstream consensus, this article and the manufacturers themselves...oh and common sense as pure nicotine would kill the user. Use the second article as that is written by a health journalist, is not biased towards one point of view unlike many others, and quotes researchers who've been published on this topic in medical journals rather than anti-tobacco journals. Jurrut (talk) 15:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- The change in wording is just for the sake of succinctness -- otherwise we'd have to use a disputable word like "healthfulness" or else lengthen things considerably, when there's no need. If something is claimed to be healthy, that covers safe too, by your own definition. That's besides that fact that this is just a summary whose details come later (WP:LEDE), and there is never a need to use the exact words of a source (in fact it's better not to). Verifiable means it was stated in a reliable source, such as a CNN article. We, again, are not in any position to dismiss claims made by reliable sources as defined by WP:RS. This is how Misplaced Pages works (for better or worse). Equazcion 15:49, 11 Mar 2012 (UTC)
- It's not and there's no need for any substitute, say what it says, not what you want. We most certainly are in a position to dismiss that claim as nonsense and the entire article as very questionable because of that. Not verifiable, not supported by mainstream consensus, this article and the manufacturers themselves...oh and common sense as pure nicotine would kill the user. Use the second article as that is written by a health journalist, is not biased towards one point of view unlike many others, and quotes researchers who've been published on this topic in medical journals rather than anti-tobacco journals. Jurrut (talk) 15:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- Then in this context it's an apt substitute. The point we're trying to get across is that there are claims that e-cigs are actually healthy, which may or may not be true -- it could be an overstatement of safety. Even the ones who claim e-cigs are "very safe" or "safer than regular cigarettes" are in dispute. And we're not in any position as Misplaced Pages editors to say we have better information than a CNN article, at least not without citing another source claiming that. See WP:V. Equazcion 15:15, 11 Mar 2012 (UTC)
- No it doesn't they're two very different claims. Being healthy does mean it's safe but being safe does not mean it's healthy. That CNN article also says they only contain pure nicotine aka it's rubbish so it's best to lose that one. Jurrut (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- The articles begin with the premise that e-cigs are claimed to be healthy alternatives to smoking (eg. "Makers of e-cigs tout their product as the first healthy cigarette...," from the CNN article, "healthy"), and go on to examine both sides of that claim. We're just seeking to summarize that controversy, and I think "possibly overstated claims of safety" does that pretty succinctly. If something is "safe", that does tend to translate to "healthy" in this context, no? I'm not seeing the problem. Equazcion 14:56, 11 Mar 2012 (UTC)
- No benefits have nothing to do with safety. Still none of those articles support that claim however a suitable compromise would be what those do say. Something along the lines of "Concerns exist among medical professionals and researchers due to the lack of evidence regarding the aerosol inhaled and any additives used while anti-smoking groups have stated it could appeal...." though it would mean reworking that paragraph. The first two new refs do support that statement (and would be easy to find many more) but the third is rather dodgy so best to just drop it. Inclusion of the "unsubstantiated health benefits" regarding vitamin additives would also be good but that's probably better further down the page and stating which researcher said it (and the manufacturer if there's only one). In the second article, health.com, Dr Cobb makes a statement (page 2) about his research and levels of nicotine which should be included further down the page. Jurrut (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- I thought if something is beneficial to your health then that would indicate it's safe too. Anyway I added more refs. Let me know if that's enough yet, I can get more. Equazcion 09:38, 11 Mar 2012 (UTC)
- That ref points to overstated claims of health benefits, not safety and as I said one sentence is grossly insufficient to make such a claim regarding an entire industry. This is only about whether that claim is verifiable, accurate and made by a reputable source. That's not the case. Jurrut (talk) 04:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- The claim we're looking to cite here isn't that electronic cigarettes are unhealthy -- only that the topic is controversial. Specifically you asked for a ref regarding the claim that people have pointed to overstated claims of safety in their marketing, as is my understanding, and this ref does show that. As for the reliability of Discovery, whether or not you agree that its journalism is top-notch, it (at least their news site) fits Misplaced Pages's standards regarding reliable sources. See WP:RS. Equazcion 18:43, 10 Mar 2012 (UTC)
break
It's not a change of wording but change of meaning. That claim is not verifiable because it's a CNN journalist making it (which makes them a primary source) versus doctors, researchers, the manufacturers and all the other journalists who did bother to do some basic research on the topic. Jurrut (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- It's not a change in meaning. If they claim it's healthy, they are claiming it's also safe (according to your definition, again), which is what the statement here says. As far as verifiability: If a reliable source states a claim we take it to mean it's been researched and fact-checked. That's a major distinction between reliable and unreliable sources -- a blog works as you describe, with one author who can self-publish their own original claim (that's why they're not considered reliable), which is markedly different from something like a news service publication. Equazcion 16:09, 11 Mar 2012 (UTC)
- No, that's not my definition, read it again. No, it's not a reliable source for such a claim because, as I said, everyone else says otherwise. No amount of debate will change either of those facts. Jurrut (talk) 16:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- Above you said, "Being healthy does mean it's safe but being safe does not mean it's healthy". Let me know how I'm reading this wrong.
- No, that's not my definition, read it again. No, it's not a reliable source for such a claim because, as I said, everyone else says otherwise. No amount of debate will change either of those facts. Jurrut (talk) 16:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- Again, a reliable source is defined in WP:RS, and your opinion of this one doesn't change Misplaced Pages's criteria.
- I've brought quite a few reliable sources stating that there are claims of health regarding e-cigs, and that those claims are controversial. Do you have reliable sources that say otherwise? Equazcion 16:21, 11 Mar 2012 (UTC)
- By ignoring the part you didn't bold. You're free to consult a dictionary if you doubt me.
- And in that page it specifically states a news organisation is not perfect which this is clearly an example of. Will you now be removing all references in the article to other additives and change it to state the only ingredient in the juice is pure nicotine? No because that source is wrong and everyone else is right.
- You provided articles that make claims but none of those directly support the statement. If you think any do please quote the specific phrase. Jurrut (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- The part I didn't bold isn't applicable -- the source says "healthy", and we're stating "safe", which (according to the bold part of your statement) is implied by "healthy". It doesn't matter if safety doesn't also imply health (it would if the CNN article stated "safe" and we were trying to claim "healthy" here, but we're not). The inclusion of "the only ingredient: pure liquid nicotine" in the CNN article does seem inaccurate, but it seems more like a case of overzealous dramatic flare, and certainly no indication that the rest of the article is in question. Besides which, it's not the only ref that states the facts we're concerned with. There is controversy over the safety of e-cigarettes, and all the refs state that fact. I guess I'm still not seeing the problem. Equazcion 16:41, 11 Mar 2012 (UTC)
- It's implied by healthy but they certainly aren't interchangeable. It creates a very different meaning and as I said please consult a dictionary if you doubt this. Dramatic flare? No it's grossly inaccurate, they're saying it's pure poison, reflecting poor research at best. It's not a reliable source for an encyclopaedia when so many actually credible ones exist.
- The part I didn't bold isn't applicable -- the source says "healthy", and we're stating "safe", which (according to the bold part of your statement) is implied by "healthy". It doesn't matter if safety doesn't also imply health (it would if the CNN article stated "safe" and we were trying to claim "healthy" here, but we're not). The inclusion of "the only ingredient: pure liquid nicotine" in the CNN article does seem inaccurate, but it seems more like a case of overzealous dramatic flare, and certainly no indication that the rest of the article is in question. Besides which, it's not the only ref that states the facts we're concerned with. There is controversy over the safety of e-cigarettes, and all the refs state that fact. I guess I'm still not seeing the problem. Equazcion 16:41, 11 Mar 2012 (UTC)
- I've brought quite a few reliable sources stating that there are claims of health regarding e-cigs, and that those claims are controversial. Do you have reliable sources that say otherwise? Equazcion 16:21, 11 Mar 2012 (UTC)
- As I said, please quote the specific phrase you think supports the statement I removed. Jurrut (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- I know what the words mean :) Safe in this context is "safe for human consumption", and "not detrimental to one's health". It's perfectly reasonable then to say that something claimed to be healthy is indeed safe. If it's healthy it has to be safe.
- Let's take a slightly different approach, because I'm really not understanding what you're trying to accomplish here. Disregarding the wording used in the intro here, what is the point you disagree with? And what do you think should be said instead? Equazcion 17:04, 11 Mar 2012 (UTC)
- However it's not perfectly reasonable to then say a claim of health benefits equates to claims of safety, you're taking another step. Does no harm does not mean improves well being.
- What I'm trying to accomplish hasn't change since my first edit so if you don't understand it that's a problem given you reverted it. I offered an alternative much further up which is supported by reliable sources. Jurrut (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- We're not saying "a claim of health benefits equates to claims of safety". If someone claims something is healthy, then logically we can say they're claiming it's safe.
- I saw your proposed change to the wording but it didn't clarify for me what your problem is with the implications of the current wording. Could you restate it? Forget about specific words for the time being, if possible, and just try to describe what you think the article is implying that it shouldn't imply. Perhaps it's my failing, but if you could humor me and try to explain what the larger issue is here, it might help us get through this. Equazcion 17:38, 11 Mar 2012 (UTC)