| Revision as of 18:25, 13 January 2015 editAlbinoFerret (talk | contribs)11,178 editsm →In-text attribution← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:33, 13 January 2015 edit undoQuackGuru (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users79,978 edits →In-text attribution: 37 referencesNext edit → | ||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 170: | Line 170: | ||
| :::::Please ] and try instead to see if you can find ] 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 ] and ] can't use an opinion source for factual material no matter if the material is mundane or not. --] 17:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC) | :::::Please ] and try instead to see if you can find ] 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 ] and ] can't use an opinion source for factual material no matter if the material is mundane or not. --] 17:33, 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. ] 18:23, 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. ] 18:23, 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. 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 ] source. For example, when there are the source cited it shows it is a secondary source. ] (]) 20:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:33, 13 January 2015
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Health effects of electronic cigarettes article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 7 days  |
 | Medicine Start‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 Archives | |||||
|
|||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Duplicate summaries from other pages RFC
 |
|
Should this page have duplicate summaries of other pages or sections that are not daughter pages of it? Daughter pages are sections broken out of a page to create a new page. Should this page have duplicates of other pages or sections linked to or in the E-cigarette article? There is a discussion here on the subject.AlbinoFerret 06:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
- NO This page should focus in on its own topic and not duplicate material from the Electronic cigarette article or pages that were broken out from the Electronic cigarette article. The only summery sections it should contain are for sections broken out from it. It should not be a source of duplication. The section never had consensus to be here in the first place. AlbinoFerret 06:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- No it shouldn't That's what the main e-cig article is for.--FergusM1970 13:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- No There shouldn't be duplication of sections however some information will be relevant on multiple daughter pages. SPACKlick (talk) 12:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- @SPACKlick: Just to be clear on your comment. When you say some information may be relevant on multiple pages are you saying that some claims may be usable in different sections on different pages? AlbinoFerret 12:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. The text is relevant for this article and when it was added to another page it was deleted. User:CFCF is also in favor of keeping the concise section. This makes no sense to delete the relevant text from this page. So what is actual the reason for wanting to delete it? QuackGuru (talk) 04:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- It's not relevant to this article. This article is about safety. There is another article for legal status. Legal information belongs there. It does not belong here.--FergusM1970 05:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- User:FergusM1970 has been banned for undisclosed paid editing. QuackGuru (talk) 09:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- No I haven't.--FergusM1970 21:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- That is not relevant to the discussion of you adding sections that were never part of this page. Fergus did not add the sections, you did. AlbinoFerret 20:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- User:FergusM1970 has been banned for undisclosed paid editing. QuackGuru (talk) 09:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- It's not relevant to this article. This article is about safety. There is another article for legal status. Legal information belongs there. It does not belong here.--FergusM1970 05:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- No This is a daughter article - if we did this, then there would be a very real problem of this article turning into a WP:POVFORK. --Kim D. Petersen 17:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- MAYBE question is too vague to answer. i don't understand the background of this but i can only imagine it is ugly. This is an important issue and way too often neglected in WP, leading to too many articles with contradictory or conflicting information. Here is how it is supposed to work. An article is created (say Electronic cigarettes) and it grows and grows to the point where a WP:SPLIT is useful. The split is done, and the split-off article gets a new lead paragraph that, per WP:LEAD, summarizes it. Per WP:SUMMARY, a summary of the split-off article should appear in the parent article, with a link to the MAIN article right under the section header. In my view, that summary in the parent article, should be identical with the lead of the split-off article. SUMMARY and LEAD work perfectly together. Now, it is not uncommon for a single parent article to result in several split articles, and quite often those split-off articles need to cover the same ground (each article needs to be able to stand on its own). In those cases, following SUMMARY, it is often useful to use the lead of the split-off articles in each other as well as in the parent article. The way that updates should work, is that new content is added to the body of the relevant split-off article. If it is important enough to rise to the lead of that article, the lead is updated, and the summary sections in other articles are updated too. That is the best way to handle this. It is kind of a subtle thing but it is very important to avoid the problems folks above are concerned about. Jytdog (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for adding a comment, it appears you were canvassed link by QuackGuru AlbinoFerret 03:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Now User:AlbinoFerret falsely accused me of canvassing User:Jytdog to this RFC. AlbinoFerret, please strike your comment. QuackGuru (talk) 04:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- This is not a false accusing, you pinged an uninvolved editor in your comment, then went and started a conversation on this subject with an uninvolved editor on their talk page, they then came and posted here. That is canvassing, pulling in uninvolved editors to comment. Especially those who you believe will share the same point of view. AlbinoFerret 04:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Please strike your comment. For example, you falsely accused me of "started a conversation on this subject with an uninvolved editor on their talk page" without supporting evidence. You may want to scratch this RFC too. See Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettes#Ambiguous RFC. QuackGuru (talk) 04:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- There is a link to the section already on the page. But in case you missed it, link. 7 hours later he posted here. He has never edited this page or made a comment here before. The other evidence is out in the open, in your comment on the RFC, you pinged an another uninvolved editor, CFCF. AlbinoFerret 04:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- 7 hours later User:Jytdog did not post here. User:CFCF wrote "It is utterly relevant for the topic. The legal status ties into what safety concerns there are. I see more pointing towards a consensus to keep the addition, but if you wish you may start an RFC about its removal." User:CFCF is clearly involved. User:AlbinoFerret, please try to focus a bit more on formulating a RFC that is specific rather than ambiguous. QuackGuru (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- There is a link to the section already on the page. But in case you missed it, link. 7 hours later he posted here. He has never edited this page or made a comment here before. The other evidence is out in the open, in your comment on the RFC, you pinged an another uninvolved editor, CFCF. AlbinoFerret 04:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Please strike your comment. For example, you falsely accused me of "started a conversation on this subject with an uninvolved editor on their talk page" without supporting evidence. You may want to scratch this RFC too. See Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettes#Ambiguous RFC. QuackGuru (talk) 04:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- This is not a false accusing, you pinged an uninvolved editor in your comment, then went and started a conversation on this subject with an uninvolved editor on their talk page, they then came and posted here. That is canvassing, pulling in uninvolved editors to comment. Especially those who you believe will share the same point of view. AlbinoFerret 04:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Now User:AlbinoFerret falsely accused me of canvassing User:Jytdog to this RFC. AlbinoFerret, please strike your comment. QuackGuru (talk) 04:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for adding a comment, it appears you were canvassed link by QuackGuru AlbinoFerret 03:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I fully back QuackGuru here, and don't understand what the RfC actually means to address. If it is about arbitrarily removing sections on the grounds there are other articles covering certain element related to the security then I strongly oppose it regardless of how you word the argument. The fact is that regulation is relevant to this article when the regulation is due to concerns involving the safety.-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 22:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Agree with CFCF Cloudjpk (talk) 07:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Actively abstain. I have received four Requests for Comment for Talk:Electronic cigarette, and now this. I suspect that someone is trying to game the system. Maproom (talk) 09:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Comments on discussion
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Legal_status_of_electronic_cigarettes&curid=42877829&diff=637458479&oldid=637418234 User:AlbinoFerret wrote "remove pure health related claims from a page on regulation".
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Legal_status_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=637569001&oldid=637568901 User:AlbinoFerret wrote "the specific adverse effects are medical claims and not legal in nature".
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=638737439&oldid=638718636 User:FergusM1970 deleted the section from this article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Legal_status_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=638737551&oldid=638557066 User:FergusM1970 moved the paragraph to another article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Legal_status_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=638859935&oldid=638859813 But then User:FergusM1970 acknowledged "This has nothing to do with legal status; it's just shoehorning in health claims."
Both of these editors claim the text does not belong in this article but are deleting text from another article they don't want in this or any article. It appears they don't want most of the text in any article. A lot more text was deleted. One of the edit summaries was revealing. I don't think that's meaningful in any way. I'm sure a lot more text will continue to be deleted if past behavior is represented of future behavior. For example, User:FergusM1970 wants to "zap" the "Aerosol" section? User:Softlavender explained "It's not hard to see there's a pattern here" in regard to User:FergusM1970's recent behavior at the electronic cigarette page. QuackGuru (talk) 04:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yes Quack, I want to zap it. Its content belongs under various other sections, mostly Toxicology. Regarding the edit comment you highlighted, no, the sentence I removed was not meaningful. It didn't mean anything. It was just a more or less random collection of words, galloping merrily across the page free of worries, cares, syntax or grammar. If you want it back in the article then by all means suggest a form that makes sense; I'm happy to work with you on that. As for the rest of your comment:
- 1) Yes, I deleted text brought in from another article. That's because, as you have already been told, it belongs in the other article. Not here.
- 2) Yes, lots more text is going to be deleted. Around 80% of it, I'd say. However the amount of content that will be deleted is virtually nil. I'd suggest you read this, but if it's too complex here's the short version. This:
- A study says something. Another study says the same thing. Yet another study says the same thing. This study says the same thing too. Here's another study that says - hooray! - the same thing..
- Is much longer and contains more text than this:
- Some studies say this.
- But it doesn't contain any more information. So yes, I am going to delete vast amounts of text from this article, because right now it is practically unreadable. It is stodgy, repetitive, confusing, internally contradictory and just appallingly badly written. What I am not going to delete is any information.--FergusM1970 05:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay. I have just had a closer look at your complaint, Quack. I am WP:AGF here and assuming that you are failing to understand my edits, rather than deliberately misrepresenting them, so I will explain. I moved a section on legal issues from this page, where it does not belong, to the legal page. Then I deleted half of it (the reference to the old 2009 FDA cigalike tests) from there because it dealt with purely health issues. You claim that I "don't want the text in any article." Well what's this then? The text you accuse me of "not wanting in any article" is right here, in this article, where it belongs - in the Toxicology section. However now it's in the article once, like it should be, not twice like it was before. Firstly you need to accept that needlessly duplicating content does not make the article better or more informative; it turns it into an unreadable mess. Secondly you need to make sure of your facts before you start throwing accusations around. You've been accused of not following AGF and not being WP:COMPETENT plenty times; this is why.--FergusM1970 06:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=638737439&oldid=638718636 You clearly deleted it from this article. Your edit summary was "Moving to Legal Status article". It was not duplication.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Legal_status_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=638859935&oldid=638859813 You moved it to another article and then you deleted almost all of it from the other article. The text you deleted from the article article belongs in this article but you claim It's not relevant to this article. You seems to be making two different arguments. You claim it's not relevant to this article but then you claim it was duplication. Maybe you should strike you comment at ANI. QuackGuru (talk) 06:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Oh FFS.
- Yes, I removed it from this article and moved it to the Legal article. That's because it was about legal issues.
- Yes, I deleted most of it from the Legal article. That's because what I deleted wasn't relevant to that article; it's relevant to this one. And it's still in this one, because it was duplicated!
- The text that is not relevant to this article is the legal bit. The safety information is relevant to this article.
- You clearly cannot understand my edits. Maybe you should stop commenting on things you do not understand.--FergusM1970 07:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- The text you claim is "duplicated" is not found in this article because you deleted it. QuackGuru (talk) 07:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- headdesk It is in the article. It is in the first sentence of the first section following the lede.--FergusM1970 07:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Are you claiming the text you deleted is in another section? According to your edit summary you moved it to another article (but you deleted most of it). Right? QuackGuru (talk) 07:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- No, Quack. I am not claiming that it is in another section. I am telling you exactly where it is. Go and look. It's not hard to find. It's right here.--FergusM1970 08:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- User:FergusM1970 deleted the paragraph and then claimed it is still in the article. That is disruptive. QuackGuru (talk) 09:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- It was still in the article, right there in the first sentence of the first section after the lede. At least the information was there. There's no way I was going to leave your whole paragraph, because it was utter gash. From now on it's best you stick to seeking consensus on the talk page then let someone else edit the article. You can't write. You have no idea of how to construct a sentence. The edits you make are often completely incomprehensible. And I know what I'm talking about, because I'm a professional writer.--FergusM1970 21:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- User:FergusM1970 deleted the paragraph and then claimed it is still in the article. That is disruptive. QuackGuru (talk) 09:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- No, Quack. I am not claiming that it is in another section. I am telling you exactly where it is. Go and look. It's not hard to find. It's right here.--FergusM1970 08:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Are you claiming the text you deleted is in another section? According to your edit summary you moved it to another article (but you deleted most of it). Right? QuackGuru (talk) 07:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- headdesk It is in the article. It is in the first sentence of the first section following the lede.--FergusM1970 07:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- The text you claim is "duplicated" is not found in this article because you deleted it. QuackGuru (talk) 07:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
It appears editors may have been recruiting to Misplaced Pages. See here. See here. See https://www.elance.com/j/electronic-cigarette-content-writing/57113433/ User:FergusM1970 has been banned for undisclosed paid editing and has made mass changes to this article. I think we need to restore the deleted text and undo the mass changes. QuackGuru (talk) 09:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- You have misrpresented the facts. One editor was blocked because he was paid to edit and did not disclose it. He admitted he did so. He did not admit nor is there proof he edited this article for money, or recruited anyone. AlbinoFerret 09:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
User:MastCell and User:JzG. There has been mass changes to this article. A lot of text was deleted by User:FergusM1970. Some assistance may be necessary. I have updated the article and restored the text. QuackGuru (talk) 10:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- No, Quack. You have created a useless, unreadable mess of contradictory claims.--FergusM1970 21:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not comfortable with the above, it smacks of WP:CANVASsing. But fortunately the two editors getting called here are level-headed. --Kim D. Petersen 18:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- KimDabelsteinPetersen Since Quack rolled back all of Fergus's edits diff I question the need to call for help and suggest your assessment is probably correct. AlbinoFerret 20:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- I don't really have words for what Quack did, but it's a mess. I'm going to remove a few contradictions, but the text needs cleaned up. Again. I wish he'd leave the writing to others because he's shit at it.--FergusM1970 21:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- KimDabelsteinPetersen Since Quack rolled back all of Fergus's edits diff I question the need to call for help and suggest your assessment is probably correct. AlbinoFerret 20:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Legal_status_of_electronic_cigarettes&curid=42877829&diff=637458479&oldid=637418234 User:AlbinoFerret wrote "remove pure health related claims from a page on regulation".
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Legal_status_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=637569001&oldid=637568901 User:AlbinoFerret wrote "the specific adverse effects are medical claims and not legal in nature".
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=637681446&oldid=637668408 User:AlbinoFerret deleted relevant text that he deleted from the Legal status of electronic cigarettes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=638529647&oldid=638526634 User:AlbinoFerret deleted relevant text that he also deleted from the Legal status of electronic cigarettes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=next&oldid=638536969 User:AlbinoFerret deleted relevant text that he also deleted from the Legal status of electronic cigarettes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=next&oldid=638606344 User:AlbinoFerret deleted relevant text that he also deleted from the Legal status of electronic cigarettes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=638827743&oldid=638815324 User:AlbinoFerret deleted relevant text that he also deleted from the Legal status of electronic cigarettes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=638907061&oldid=638608587 User:AlbinoFerret deleted relevant text that he also deleted from the Legal status of electronic cigarettes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=prev&oldid=639381769 User:AlbinoFerret deleted relevant text that he also deleted from the Legal status of electronic cigarettes.
Most of the paragraph is not found in any other article. So why is it being deleted when the text has nothing to do with legal status; it's just shoehorning in health claims.? Isn't this article about health claims? This is what User:AlbinoFerret deleted from another page where he claims the text belongs. If User:AlbinoFerret beleived the text belonged in another article then why is he not moving it to another article? QuackGuru (talk) 03:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Health related info doesn't belong on the legal aspects article, nor do legal aspects belong on the medical article, except in very rare cases. These are daughter articles, not articles where you can refight arguments differently (see WP:POVFORK) --Kim D. Petersen 03:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- So you agree the health claims belong in this article rather than legal status? QuackGuru (talk) 04:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- Those 3 diffs did the correct thing imho. If you want to synthesize legal/policy arguments from health arguments, then you need a third party to make the comparison. Otherwise you are doing POV editing. --Kim D. Petersen 04:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- You have not shown which sentence does not belong in this article. Both editors have shown the text does not belong in legal status. I am going to rewrite some of the text. So that makes this RFC irrelevant anyhow. QuackGuru (talk) 04:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- Those 3 diffs did the correct thing imho. If you want to synthesize legal/policy arguments from health arguments, then you need a third party to make the comparison. Otherwise you are doing POV editing. --Kim D. Petersen 04:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- So you agree the health claims belong in this article rather than legal status? QuackGuru (talk) 04:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Now that the text was rewritten and updated this RFC is no longer applicable. QuackGuru (talk) 04:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- Wrong. The RFC will run until its end and we will find where consensus lies. That way we can avoid others doing the same thing or in the future the sections reappearing because the RFC never finished. AlbinoFerret 12:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- I explained this RFC is no longer applicable for the current text and you did not disagree. If you do disagree please show which sentence does not belong in this article. So far you have not shown what is not relevant to this page. The RFC is not referring to any specific "currently rewritten text". So you can't delete any rewritten text based on this RFC. QuackGuru (talk) 20:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. The WP:POVFORK was adding it to the Legal status of electronic cigarettes because the paragraph has nothing to do with legal status. The text is about the health claims. So why are editors claiming it is a POVFORK to include it in this article when it is about health claims? The text is not a duplicate summary of other pages or sections. We can avoid the section reappearing in Legal status of electronic cigarettes page. This RFC should not be misused to delete relevant text from this page. When health related claims do not belong on the legal aspects article then they belong in this article. QuackGuru (talk) 05:06, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Ambiguous RFC
User:AlbinoFerret wrote in part: "Should this page have duplicate summaries of other pages or sections that are not daughter pages of it? Daughter pages are sections broken out of a page to create a new page. Should this page have duplicates of other pages or sections linked to or in the E-cigarette article?"
It appears the question in this RFC is ambiguous. There is no fork from another article because there is no duplicate summary of another section. Therefore, this RFC is meaningless. QuackGuru (talk) 04:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- A RFC does not have to be on an edit that is currently on the page. The question is specific. AlbinoFerret 05:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
User:AlbinoFerret has not shown what was the problem with the previous text or current text. Therefore, the question for this RFC is vague. QuackGuru (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Use of Cheng Opinions
See also What is Cheng reviewing.
The Cheng "review" and I use that term loosely because it really didnt review anything is not usable to post the opinions of Cheng as fact. It is not even possible to use "A review said" in the claims deleted because Cheng didnt review any studies on manufacturing of any component of Electronic cigarettes or nicotine. The statements are pure opinion. As such they need to be notable as well. Otherwise the use of the claims is undue weight. WP:UNDUE. The journal article is only cited by 4 other journal articles, none of them reviews, and has very low weight. AlbinoFerret 01:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- I added in-text attrition rather than in Misplaced Pages's voice. QuackGuru (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Since they are not a product of a review process, since there are no studies to review, they are purely the opinions of Cheng. As such it is inappropriate and inaccurate to say "a review said ....." There is also the weight issue. The opinions have no weight, they are only sited 4 times, none of them reviews. It is undue weight WP:UNDUE to even use them. In fact , the whole section which is only sourced to this review should go. AlbinoFerret 00:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Both User:Bluerasberry and User:Cloudjpk agree with keeping the review. The sourced text have weight. These are facts when there is no serious dispute. QuackGuru (talk) 07:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- There are no facts, its opinions that have been removed.Bluerasberry made those comments before it was pointed out the so called review said no studies had been done to form its opinions. What it did review, is still there so this so called review has been "kept". All Cloudjpk did was verify that the statements for another issue were there, he didnt comment here on the lack of studies as the basis for those pure opinions and the improper attributing of them. Neither of them commented on the weight issue for the whole section. This so called review, which is about 10 months old had only been cited in 4 other articles, none of them reviews. It has very low weight, and probably should not have its own section and a position of prominence. AlbinoFerret 14:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Since Cheng didnt review any studies on these subjects, the opinions based on things that no studies exist for (as the so called review clearly points out), it is not a secondary WP:MEDRS on those subjects. AlbinoFerret 18:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Both User:Bluerasberry and User:Cloudjpk agree with keeping the review. The sourced text have weight. These are facts when there is no serious dispute. QuackGuru (talk) 07:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Since they are not a product of a review process, since there are no studies to review, they are purely the opinions of Cheng. As such it is inappropriate and inaccurate to say "a review said ....." There is also the weight issue. The opinions have no weight, they are only sited 4 times, none of them reviews. It is undue weight WP:UNDUE to even use them. In fact , the whole section which is only sourced to this review should go. AlbinoFerret 00:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Appropriately sourced and weighted to a review. Objections that there are no studies about the subject are spurious because the lack of studies supports the conclusions that we are not certain about these subject in discussion. Yobol (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- A review has to "review" something. There is nothing for it to review. That logic is twisted to include this. It isnt a secondary source. Thats because there is no primary source to look at in a secondary sense. AlbinoFerret 12:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I have taken the question on Cheng as a secondary source to WP:RS. AlbinoFerret 13:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- It states "Literature searches were conducted through December 2013. Studies were included in this review if they related to the environmental impacts of e-cigarettes." so yes is a review. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Doc James If you read the review, the only sources it reviewed were newspaper articles related to battery disposal and advertising. I left those claims in. What I removed were pure opinions where Cheng clearly states there are no reviews to study. He has sources that discuss how things are made. He has no primary sources discussing the environmental impact of anything, except perhaps the newspaper stories questioning the disposal. In fact Cheng states this in "Research gaps related to the environmental impacts of electronic cigarettes" Cheng makes two statements:
" No studies formally evaluated the environmental impacts of the manufacturing process or disposal of components, including batteries. "
- From later in the journal article:
"No studies specifically evaluated the environmental impacts of e-cigarette manufacturing; issues related to use of resources, assembly, nicotine source, tobacco cultivation and global production "
- Without any sources on environmental impact of these topics, how is it a secondary source? AlbinoFerret 14:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- It systematically look for evidence and did not find any so says "A 2014 review stated that it is unclear" There is nothing wrong with this. This is the power of a review. One can say no evidence exists for something as one has systematically looked. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- It cant be a secondary source without primary sources. WP:MEDRS states "A secondary source in medicine summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of the current understanding of a medical topic, to make recommendations, or to combine the results of several studies." If there are no studies, or sources, it cant be a secondary in those areas. AlbinoFerret 14:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Sounds like we may need to correct MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- It cant be a secondary source without primary sources. WP:MEDRS states "A secondary source in medicine summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of the current understanding of a medical topic, to make recommendations, or to combine the results of several studies." If there are no studies, or sources, it cant be a secondary in those areas. AlbinoFerret 14:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- It systematically look for evidence and did not find any so says "A 2014 review stated that it is unclear" There is nothing wrong with this. This is the power of a review. One can say no evidence exists for something as one has systematically looked. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- It states "Literature searches were conducted through December 2013. Studies were included in this review if they related to the environmental impacts of e-cigarettes." so yes is a review. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Just leaving a note here that the RSN post has closed. There's some good conversation that should hopefully clear up some questions above. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Replacement of claim based on policy statement
Policy Statement from the American Association for Cancer Research and the American Society of Clinical Oncology is a policy statement with clear conflicts of interest. Its use for medical claims is suspect and I removed it, Yobol replaced it. I have added to it the conflict of interest. AlbinoFerret 04:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- Accusations of COI is ridiculous and removed. Yobol (talk) 04:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- The funding, under a COI header, is in the paper. AlbinoFerret 05:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- This is not funding for this paper. This is just funding that these authors have received at some point in time. You have obviously read Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes_needs_eyes Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- The funding, under a COI header, is in the paper. AlbinoFerret 05:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
In-text attribution
KimDabelsteinPetersen agreed the source is reliable to use if the text is attributed. In-text attribution is a good compromise. QuackGuru (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- No, i most certainly did not. The full discussion was archived (too early apparently) here Talk:Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes/Archive_1#McKee_is_an_editorial. You cannot use Editorial/Opinion material in this way. Not by WP:MEDRS nor by the consensus reached in that discussion. --Kim D. Petersen 22:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- The claims are mundane and most of the text is discussing what proponents said. It is a high quality WP:SECONDARY source. QuackGuru (talk) 22:53, 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. Petersen 23:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- And it would be rather nice if you stopped claiming that i revert "blindly", 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. Petersen 23:12, 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. Petersen 17:33, 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. AlbinoFerret 18:23, 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. 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)
- I agree, its unusable. Editorials are primary sources. They state the opinion of the writer, regardless of what they look at. AlbinoFerret 18:23, 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. Petersen 17:33, 13 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)
- The claims are mundane and most of the text is discussing what proponents said. It is a high quality WP:SECONDARY source. QuackGuru (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)