| Revision as of 21:41, 16 February 2015 editQuackGuru (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users79,978 edits →In-text attribution again 2← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:47, 16 February 2015 edit undoKimDabelsteinPetersen (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers19,610 edits →In-text attribution again 2: (e/c) Don't use tertiary sources.Next edit → | ||
| Line 95: | Line 95: | ||
| :::::::::::::::::::::Now before any other topic address this as a tertiary source. This is going round in circles and you are avoiding a direct question. ] 21:05, 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. ] 21:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::::::::::::::::::A tertiary source is irrelevant to ] to determine if an organisation is reliable. In any event, a service announcement from a reputable organisation is by far less reliable than a tertiary source from a reputable organisation and we know a service announcement from a reputable organisation is reliable. A position statement is typically a tertiary source, and you are suggesting that all position statements are unreliable. But there is an article called ]. ] (]) 21:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC) | ::::::::::::::::::::::A tertiary source is irrelevant to ] to determine if an organisation is reliable. In any event, a service announcement from a reputable organisation is by far less reliable than a tertiary source from a reputable organisation and we know a service announcement from a reputable organisation is reliable. A position statement is typically a tertiary source, and you are suggesting that all position statements are unreliable. But there is an article called ]. ] (]) 21:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::::::::::::::::::{{ec}}Are you serious? You may want to look up how tertiary sources, no matter their reliability should be used in Misplaced Pages ]. 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. --] 21:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ===In-text attribution again 3=== | ===In-text attribution again 3=== | ||
Revision as of 21:47, 16 February 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. |
In-text attribution
- Postgraduate Medical Journal
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)
- 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. Petersen 23:06, 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. Petersen 01:36, 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. A secondary source provides 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)
- Does the word "Editorial" ring a bell? WP:MEDRS#Biomedical_journals second sentence might give you a clue. You keep trying to wiggle around the fact that it is an opinion article, which isn't acceptable material. Sorry. --Kim D. Petersen 01:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- I tried to explain it to you before. For non-medical claims MEDRS is not applicable. QuackGuru (talk) 19:56, 16 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. Petersen 00:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- If you can't use an alternative source that is actually reliable for the "mundane " 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. Petersen 00:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- According to WP:SECONDARY it is perfectly acceptable to use secondary sources. This is not a questionable source. QuackGuru (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- WP:IDHT much? --Kim D. Petersen 23:19, 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. AlbinoFerret 23:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- According to WP:SECONDARY it is perfectly acceptable to use secondary sources. This is not a questionable source. QuackGuru (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- I tried to explain it to you before. For non-medical claims MEDRS is not applicable. QuackGuru (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Does the word "Editorial" ring a bell? WP:MEDRS#Biomedical_journals second sentence might give you a clue. You keep trying to wiggle around the fact that it is an opinion article, which isn't acceptable material. Sorry. --Kim D. Petersen 01:33, 14 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. Petersen 23:06, 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)
Yes we should stick with review articles not editorials. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Quack has brought this to WP:RSN Here is a link. He brought this there without mentioning this section, or informing the involved editors. AlbinoFerret 05:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
In-text attribution again
- A policy statement from the American Association for Cancer Research and the American Society of Clinical Oncology
- Brandon, T. H.; Goniewicz, M. L.; Hanna, N. H.; Hatsukami, D. K.; Herbst, R. S.; Hobin, J. A.; Ostroff, J. S.; Shields, P. G.; Toll, B. A.; Tyne, C. A.; Viswanath, K.; Warren, G. W. (2015). "Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems: A Policy Statement from the American Association for Cancer Research and the American Society of Clinical Oncology". Clinical Cancer Research. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-2544. ISSN 1078-0432.
Nicotine is regarded as a possibly lethal toxin. wad removed.
A policy statement by the American Association for Cancer Research and the American Society of Clinical Oncology has reported that "Third-hand exposure occurs when nicotine and other chemicals from second-hand aerosol deposit on surfaces, exposing people through touch, ingestion,and inhalation". was removed.
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. AlbinoFerret 20:25, 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.AlbinoFerret 20:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- Additionally the discussion on WP:RSN brought up the weight issue in the section here link. I have placed that tag also. AlbinoFerret 17:06, 24 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... 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)
- I added more context from the source without adding the possible adverse effects and removed the tags. AlbinoFerret 23:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- You added text that was taken out of context. I fixed the OR. QuackGuru (talk) 05:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- I added text from the same section of the source, there was no OR, and fixed the problems you introduced. AlbinoFerret 14:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- There was OR because the text did not accurately summarise the source. You claimed you fixed the problems I introduced. But I fixed the wording and you moved the text to the wrong place out of context. QuackGuru (talk) 01:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- I added text from the same section of the source, there was no OR, and fixed the problems you introduced. AlbinoFerret 14:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- You added text that was taken out of context. I fixed the OR. QuackGuru (talk) 05:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- I added more context from the source without adding the possible adverse effects and removed the tags. AlbinoFerret 23:13, 24 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... 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)
- 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
- 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)
AlbinoFerret thinks the Policy Statement from the American Association for Cancer Research and the American Society of Clinical Oncology is unreliable. QuackGuru (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- Yet another mistreatment, That was removed because of weight and original research by synthesis. AlbinoFerret 02:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- You moved the text to the wrong place that created the original research by synthesis. QuackGuru (talk) 02:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- Nope. AlbinoFerret 02:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- That is not an argument. You are continuing to delete sources that are reliable and are relevant. QuackGuru (talk) 19:13, 7 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. Petersen 19:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- That is not an argument. You are continuing to delete sources that are reliable and are relevant. QuackGuru (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- Nope. AlbinoFerret 02:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- You moved the text to the wrong place that created the original research by synthesis. QuackGuru (talk) 02:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
In-text attribution again 2
- World Lung Foundation
Another reliable source was deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 01:08, 4 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. AlbinoFerret 02:00, 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." QuackGuru (talk) 02:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- Which is in the section of Electronic cigarette that summarizes the article Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes. It is reliable in that context - but here it is a tertiary source, and tertiary sources shouldn't be used - instead you should rely on the secondary sources that the tertiary source uses to derive its position. Reliability is contextual. --Kim D. Petersen 02:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- It is reliable in that context for a medical claim. Same here. See Misplaced Pages:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Medical_and_scientific_organizations. QuackGuru (talk) 03:01, 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. Petersen 03:32, 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,..." See Misplaced Pages:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Medical_and_scientific_organizations. Even "service announcements" from reputable organisations are reliable. QuackGuru (talk) 16:54, 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. Petersen 17:02, 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. AlbinoFerret 17:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Could you please stop strawmanning? I've never said that it was unreliable - but that within this particular context it is a tertiary source, and thus not usable. I'll repeat it again: Tertiary sources are not acceptable as WP:MEDRS in this context. We need secondary review articles. --Kim D. Petersen 17:26, 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".
- Kim D. Petersen, you claimed "We need secondary review articles." So you are claiming the source is unreliable. But to state a medical claim you do not need a secondary review according to Misplaced Pages:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Medical_and_scientific_organizations. QuackGuru (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- 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. AlbinoFerret 17:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- A medical review is not the inclusion criteria according to Misplaced Pages:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Medical_and_scientific_organizations. QuackGuru (talk) 18:00, 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. AlbinoFerret 18:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- MEDRS does not state that only medical reviews are reliable. The source does not have to be on par with a review according to Misplaced Pages:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Medical_and_scientific_organizations. QuackGuru (talk) 18:09, 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. Petersen 18:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC))
- The WP:MEDRS#Definitions is not about the organisations. To determine the reliability for organisations we have the section Misplaced Pages:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Medical_and_scientific_organizations. The general consensus is not to use solely secondary reviews. For example, AlbinoFerret tried to delete a reliable source because it was not a "review". But that was against consensus to delete the organisation. QuackGuru (talk) 18:38, 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. AlbinoFerret 18:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- That was a formal policy statement in a peer reviewed journal and yet you still tried to delete it. A service announcement from a reputable organisation is reliable according to Misplaced Pages:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Medical_and_scientific_organizations. A service announcement from a reputable organisation is a much weaker source than a tertiary source from a reputable organisation yet it is still reliable. QuackGuru (talk) 19:11, 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. AlbinoFerret 19:32, 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 Misplaced Pages: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. AlbinoFerret 19:51, 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. AlbinoFerret 21:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- A tertiary source is irrelevant to Misplaced Pages:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Medical_and_scientific_organizations to determine if an organisation is reliable. In any event, a service announcement from a reputable organisation is by far less reliable than a tertiary source from a reputable organisation and we know a service announcement from a reputable organisation is reliable. A position statement is typically a tertiary source, and you are suggesting that all position statements are unreliable. But there is an article called Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes. QuackGuru (talk) 21:17, 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Petersen 21:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- A tertiary source is irrelevant to Misplaced Pages:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Medical_and_scientific_organizations to determine if an organisation is reliable. In any event, a service announcement from a reputable organisation is by far less reliable than a tertiary source from a reputable organisation and we know a service announcement from a reputable organisation is reliable. A position statement is typically a tertiary source, and you are suggesting that all position statements are unreliable. But there is an article called Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes. QuackGuru (talk) 21:17, 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. AlbinoFerret 21:05, 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)
- 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. AlbinoFerret 19:51, 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 Misplaced Pages:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Medical_and_scientific_organizations. QuackGuru (talk) 19:42, 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. AlbinoFerret 19:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- That was a formal policy statement in a peer reviewed journal and yet you still tried to delete it. A service announcement from a reputable organisation is reliable according to Misplaced Pages:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Medical_and_scientific_organizations. A service announcement from a reputable organisation is a much weaker source than a tertiary source from a reputable organisation yet it is still reliable. QuackGuru (talk) 19:11, 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. AlbinoFerret 18:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- The WP:MEDRS#Definitions is not about the organisations. To determine the reliability for organisations we have the section Misplaced Pages:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Medical_and_scientific_organizations. The general consensus is not to use solely secondary reviews. For example, AlbinoFerret tried to delete a reliable source because it was not a "review". But that was against consensus to delete the organisation. QuackGuru (talk) 18:38, 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. Petersen 18:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC))
- MEDRS does not state that only medical reviews are reliable. The source does not have to be on par with a review according to Misplaced Pages:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Medical_and_scientific_organizations. QuackGuru (talk) 18:09, 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. AlbinoFerret 18:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- A medical review is not the inclusion criteria according to Misplaced Pages:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Medical_and_scientific_organizations. QuackGuru (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- 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. AlbinoFerret 17:44, 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)
- 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. Petersen 17:02, 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,..." See Misplaced Pages:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Medical_and_scientific_organizations. Even "service announcements" from reputable organisations are reliable. QuackGuru (talk) 16:54, 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. Petersen 03:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- It is reliable in that context for a medical claim. Same here. See Misplaced Pages:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Medical_and_scientific_organizations. QuackGuru (talk) 03:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
In-text attribution again 3
- World Medical Association
Both AlbinoFerret and KimDabelsteinPetersen deleted a reliable source. QuackGuru (talk) 01:04, 4 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. AlbinoFerret 01:59, 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)
- Just like above - this is a tertiary source. Use secondary sources per WP:MEDRS. --Kim D. Petersen 02:50, 16 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)
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
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.
SPACKlick (talk) 09:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- 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)
- That review was written by a mechanical engineer.--InfiniteBratwurst (talk) 14:32, 13 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. Petersen 22:29, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Yes, very interesting that the only adverse effect it found was a known issue specific to mice and that free radical levels were three orders of magnitude lower than cigarettes.--InfiniteBratwurst (talk) 16:14, 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)
- Yes, very interesting that the only adverse effect it found was a known issue specific to mice and that free radical levels were three orders of magnitude lower than cigarettes.--InfiniteBratwurst (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- Both of them are unfortunately primary sources, so we'll need to wait for reviews that use 'em :) --Kim D. Petersen 22:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Removal of sales claim
Sales are not a safety issue. Sales are economic and are off topic for this page. AlbinoFerret 15:32, 13 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)