Misplaced Pages

Talk:Health effects of electronic cigarettes

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by QuackGuru (talk | contribs) at 00:30, 15 March 2015 (→Mammoth edit adding position statements: broad consensus). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:30, 15 March 2015 by QuackGuru (talk | contribs) (→Mammoth edit adding position statements: broad consensus)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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.
Article policies
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 
WikiProject iconMedicine Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

RFC: Are medical statements such as those from the World Lung Foundation reliable for medical content?

Please consider joining the feedback request service.
An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

The dispute revolves around material from the World Lung Foundation which was removed in this diff and mterial from the World Medical Association was removed in this diff.

The text from the WLF in our article was "The World Lung Foundation stated that "Researchers find that many e-cigarettes contain toxins, contaminants and carcinogens that conflict with the industry’s portrayal of its products as purer, healthier alternatives. They also find considerable variations in the amount of nicotine delivered by different brands. None of this information is made available to consumers so they really don’t know what they are ingesting, or how much."; cited to this statement released by the WLF.

The text from the WMA in our article was "In October 2012, the World Medical Association stated, "Manufacturers and marketers of e-cigarettes often claim that use of their products is a safe alternative to smoking, particularly since they do not produce carcinogenic smoke. However, no studies have been conducted to determine that the vapor is not carcinogenic, and there are other potential risks associated with these devices: Appeal to children, especially when flavors like strawberry or chocolate are added to the cartridges."; cited to this statement released by the WMA.

Should these statements be included in the article? Yobol (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Positions

  • Include statements. Both statements are reliably sourced to WP:MEDRS compliant sourcing, specifically position statements by medical organizations. Arguments for their removal including assertions that tertiary sources cannot be used on Misplaced Pages fly in the face of WP:MEDRS which explicitly allows for the use of tertiary sources including medical textbooks. While I would agree that these are not the most ideal MEDRS sources, neither of these statements appear at all controversial in content, and the sourcing is adequate for the purpose. I should also note that it has been argue above that there is a "consensus" that only review articles can be used as sources here. I will note that this declaration of a consensus appears to have been made up whole cloth out of thin air, and no evidence whatsoever of any such consensus has been produced. Yobol (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
KimDabelsteinPetersen, you deleted a number of sources including reviews. So what is your explanation for also deleting the secondary reviews you state should be used instead? QuackGuru (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
First, you have no idea whether these statements are secondary or tertiary, as you do not know what data or studies the sources base their statements on. Second, even if they were tertiary sources, however, tertiary sources are not disallowed by WP:RS, WP:MEDRS or any other policy or guideline on Misplaced Pages. Removing them repeatedly merely on the basis that they are tertiary sources does not comply with any Misplaced Pages guideline or policy. Yobol (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
If it is not tertiary - then they are then primary... which doesn't make it better. Once more: We should use the best secondary review WP:MEDRS compliant papers. If the information in a position statement cannot be found in the secondary review literature - then there really is a problem with using position statements - because then they are purely politically based. There is a specific article for position statements. --Kim D. Petersen 21:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
They clearly are not primary as they are using the underlying medical literature as a source (either the primary or secondary literature), making those statements at least secondary in nature. You are trying to make up your own rules on what is allowable per MEDRS. These are position statements by medical organizations and therefore MEDRS compliant. We don't have additional rules that they have to be corroborated by a published review article, and we certainly do not have a restriction to only review articles in MEDRS. Please stop making up your own rules. Yobol (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Are you truly trying to say that we cannot decipher or "know what data or studies the sources base their statements on"?? And then you still want to use it? Erh? Don't you see a problem here? I would assume that they get their positions from the secondary literature, and not just make up stuff that isn't in the medical literature already. --Kim D. Petersen 21:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
They could also be basing it off the primary medical literature, making the statements a secondary source. Yobol (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Then we should be able to decipher what secondary sources they are based upon. Position statements are less reliable than secondary review articles under all circumstances. If they are purely based upon primary material, then they even less reliable than secondary review papers. So use: Secondary review material instead - just as consensus has been on electronic cigarette articles all of the time. --Kim D. Petersen 21:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
There is no such consensus, and repeatedly declaring such a consensus exists does not make it so. Yobol (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
There most certainly has been such a consensus - no matter how much you argue against it. But consensus can of course change, but please consider the consequences. So far everything has been based upon secondary review material from highranking MedLine indexed journals - are we throwing that requirement away? --Kim D. Petersen 21:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
If such a consensus exists, that the only sources allowable for medical content is published review articles, please point out the talk page section or RfC which establishes it. We use MEDRS compliant sourcing for medical content, which includes statements by medical organizations. Yobol (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Use secondary review WP:MEDRS sources Formal policy statements that are review quality can also be used. Because formal scientific reports are mentioned on WP:MEDRS which says " formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals". The World Lung Foundation souse that is cited as an example is a Press release (clearly marked as one in the yellow bar at the top as a Press Release) and not a source that should be relied on for medical claims.AlbinoFerret 21:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
WP:MEDRS does not have a restriction to only using published journal article reviews. Yobol (talk) 21:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Press releases are not appropriate for medical claims. AlbinoFerret 21:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Where you see a press release, I see a position statement adopted by the general assembly of the organization. Yobol (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
This is a press-release. And it is one of the sources that you argue for in the above. --Kim D. Petersen 21:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
There is also no language in that press release saying this was "adopted by the general assembly of the organization". AlbinoFerret 16:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Eligible certainly. But less useful, and carrying significantly less weight than secondary review literature, which has so far been the consensus position as the threshold for material on electronic cigarette articles. --Kim D. Petersen 21:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
You keep saying there is a "consensus" that only review articles are allowed to be used as medical sources. Please point me to the thread or RfC which established such a consensus. Absent this, please stop making up your own "consensus". Thanks. Yobol (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Sigh! Reliable secondary review WP:MEDRS compliant papers, in high quality MedLine indexed journals has so far been the consensus. Can you tell me what is wrong about that previous consensus? Don't you think that we should use the very best material available per WP:MEDRS? --Kim D. Petersen 21:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
@KimDabelsteinPetersen: Actually no, there are many circumstances in which the position statements of major bodies (NHS, NICE, ACS, WHO) offer the strongest source - or at the very least one which should not be omitted. Alexbrn 21:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
That is why we have a whole article Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes based upon these sources, and summarize them at Electronic cigarette. Can you tell me why reliable secondary review material isn't enough here? --Kim D. Petersen 21:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Where is the talk page section or RfC which establishes that only published review articles can be used? Yobol (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The question of whether there is a local "consensus" to eliminate position papers as sources for this article is irrelevant, because there is a broader consensus across all of Misplaced Pages that these are ideal sources for this type of content. Have you taken a look at WP:RS recently? It states unambiguously that

Ideal sources for biomedical assertions include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies.

WP:RS
The statement is repeated in WP:MEDRS

Ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies.

WP:RS

These guidelines reflect broad consensus from editors across all of Misplaced Pages. You cannot create a local exception just because you don't like what "ideal sources" stay about these devices. If you want to change this, you have to get consensus to change both WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. I doubt very much you will be successful. Formerly 98 (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Cherry picking from WP:MEDRS and WP:RS now? Are you truly saying that WP policy is that we should prefer tertiary sources over secondary, or that position statements are the equivalent of reviews? Have you btw. read WP:Tertiary, WP:CON or WP:WEIGHT recently? --Kim D. Petersen 21:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are referring to by "cherrypicking". The term is usually used to refer to picking out a single article that favors a certain POV out of a set of many that express a different opinion. There is only one WP:MEDRS and only one WP:RS and both clearly and unambiguously prohibit this sort of exclusion of ideal sources. I'm sorry you don't like what these sources say. I suggest you find a different strategy for trying to exclude them, as this one will not survive review even if successful locally. Formerly 98 (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Im surprised you want to included press releases. AlbinoFerret 01:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
To clarify, that press release links to another from the CDC saying almost the same thing! essentially intended to promote awareness of a paper published the same day, 20 Aug 2014: "Intentions to Smoke Cigarettes Among Never-Smoking US Middle and High School Electronic Cigarette Users: National Youth Tobacco Survey, 2011-2013" PMID 25143298. That (large primary) paper compares to "E-cigarette prevalence and correlates of use among adolescents versus adults: a review and comparison", PMID 24680203. That too indicates that youth using e-cigarettes (compared to never-using them) are more likely to later try conventional cigarettes, though the precise details and wording vary.LeadSongDog come howl! 03:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
So we have press releases to promote primary sources? By the way the Chapman review is already in the main e-cig article. AlbinoFerret 04:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Just abit about tertiary sources:

Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others.

WP:Tertiary
WP:MEDRS#Definitions might also give a hint here. WP:MEDRS compliant secondary review papers are the best sources we can use. So why would we choose lesser sources? --Kim D. Petersen 21:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Seems to me that for some editors it is not enough with the material that they can find in the best available sources per WP:MEDRS and thus want to WP:COATRACK material that belongs in Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes into this article. Tertiary sources, position statements, policy statements etc. are lesser sources than review material! --Kim D. Petersen 21:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)\
You can also look at Other sources on the WP:MEDRS wich directly addresses press releases. AlbinoFerret 03:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Kim and Albino, what part of "Ideal sources for such content includes... medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies", repeated in both WP:RS and WP:MEDRS is hard to understand? Formerly 98 (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Whats hard to understand is why you want to include press releases. You also seem to be ignoring Other sources on the WP:MEDRS and completly ignoring "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." WP:MEDORG. Press releases are not even spoken of, and in no way are these formal policy statements. This is an example of a formal policy statement that was published in a peer reviewed journal, its in the article as we discuss this. What is trying to be included is lower quality material, fine for the Position page, so it is included, but not to make medical claims on this page. AlbinoFerret 16:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
You are against including formal policy statements too. You tried to delete it. See https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=642107506&oldid=642095256 If it is fine for the Position page then it should be fine for this page too because the Position page also includes medical claims. Even a service announcement may be used. Where does MEDRS say press releases from reputable organisations are unreliable? It appears you are making up your own rules for this e-cig page to exclude any source that is not a review. QuackGuru (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
You are making another misstatement that has been clairified before, yet you continue in the faulty premise. The source has COI, addressed in the source. Not only did some of the authors recieve funding from the pharmicutuical industry, they sit on the boards of dirctors for pharmicutical companies. It wasnt removed because its a formal policy statement as the next edits prove diff. I recommend you stop characterising peoples edits falsely as its a clear violation of AGF and may be, and is by me, considered a personal attack. AlbinoFerret 18:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
You wrote above "This is an example of a formal policy statement that was published in a peer reviewed journal, its in the article as we discuss this."
Yet you deleted this source. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=642107506&oldid=642095256
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.
The next edits shows there is a problem the with context you added. For example, "I don't think it's original research, but it sure seems over-the-top. Perhaps a better description than WP:OR would be WP:UNDUE, or WP:FRINGE (in emphasis), perhaps WP:POINTy, WP:EDITORIALIZING, WP:ALLEGED, or trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, using a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE to sneak in an editor's POV rather than simply reporting what well-accepted reliable sources say." according to BarrelProof. See Talk:Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes/Archive_1#Original_research_2. So why do you want to ignore MEDRS and use only secondary reviews when MEDRS allows reviews, statements from respected organisations, and medical textbooks? Claiming that only reviews are allowed is disruptive. QuackGuru (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Your rehashing of the same edit will receive the same response. I really dont care if BarrelProof, like you have applied the wrong reasons for the edit. They are clearly shown in further edits, but you dont look at them, because it doesnt fit with your preconceived rationalizations. The source had, and still has has COI issues including the authors sitting on the board of directors of pharmaceutical companies. BarrelProof questioned if the COI was OR, but it isnt because the COI is clearly laid out in the source itself. Your question is misleading and a lie, I have never said formal policy statements by the groups listed in WP:MEDORG cant be used. You want to include press releases which are not even mentioned in the section you keep referring to.AlbinoFerret 22:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
You are clearly against including any statement that is not a formal policy statement from an organisation against MEDRS. You are also against including this source and this review you deleted. So why should there be different rules for this e-cig page? QuackGuru (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
You are clearly trying to use press releases against WP:MEDRS.So why should there be different rules for this e-cig page? AlbinoFerret 23:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
The statement from the World Lung Foundation organization is reliable. The World Lung Foundation stated "A recent study indicated that e-cigarette vapor causes changes at the cellular level in a similar way as traditional cigarettes. As the WHO points out, e-cigarette vapour is not just water vapour as the e-cigarette industry likes to claim..." That indicates the statement by World Lung Foundation is also a secondary source because it reviewed the evidence. I previously explained you deleted other sources that are also reliable. This includes this source and this review among others. So why did you delete a number of sources including reviews against MEDRS? QuackGuru (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Reliability does not guarantee inclusion. AlbinoFerret 04:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
So the sources are all reliable and you have not given a specific reason to exclude them. QuackGuru (talk) 04:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I am not going to go into specifics of edits with you in this RFC, because it does no good, its round in circles and right back to "they are reliable" when reasons are given. AlbinoFerret 04:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
You confirmed the sources are reliable yet you refuse to explain what is wrong with including relevant information about safety. You are not collaborating. QuackGuru (talk) 04:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I have discussed this with you to no end, you dont seem to get it, or dont want to hear it. This entire RFC has the position laid out. There are numerous sections on the talk pages on this. Collaboration is a two way street. You dont discuss edits, no discussions on mammoth edit you tried recently, nothing. AlbinoFerret 04:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
You have not given a reason to exclude reliable sources. Claiming "Reliability does not guarantee inclusion." without any specific reason is not a valid reason. The statements from the organisations and the text from the reviews are about the safety of e-cigs. Why are you not explaining a specific reason to exclude reliable sources relevant to the topic? Do you understand that claiming "Reliability does not guarantee inclusion." is not a good reason to exclude pertinent information? QuackGuru (talk) 04:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for proving my point. Even after additional discussions, you circle back to the beginning. If you havent seen the reasons, it isnt because they are not there. I suggest you reread archive 2, and at this point silence on my part does not mean consensus WP:SILENCE. AlbinoFerret 15:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
In reaching consensus we all may learn something: Misplaced Pages only works when editors collaborate to form a consensus. Discussion is as important in the editing process as editing itself. While participation is not a requirement at the talk page, refusing participation can be perceived as a refusal to collaborate, and is not conducive to consensus-building. You are continuing to refuse to explain your deletion of a number of position statements from reputable organisations and a number of reviews. Again, claiming that "Reliability does not guarantee inclusion." is not a specific reason to exclude pertinent information. Do you understand? QuackGuru (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
No one is talking about excluding. The article Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes is for this kind of material, and this article is medical information from high quality reviews and major medical textbooks. All of which gets summarized in Electronic cigarette, of which both articles are subarticles. All of it has its place, and this is not the place for policy or position statements, this is about the underlying secondary review class material. --Kim D. Petersen 21:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Use review articles and meta-analyses: While there is a case for the inclusion of statements by medical organizations, these should only be sourced to authoritative institutions that issue health guidelines regularly, such as the U.S. National Institutes of Health, the U.K. National Health Service, or the World Health Organization. I don't think the statements of the World Lung Foundation or the World Medical Association are considered to be authoritative, and, as far as I know, none of them issue medical guidelines on a regular basis. The World Lung Foundation, in particular, appears to be a relatively new society founded in 2004 and may be of questionable notability (and reliability). Anyone can issues health statements, but not all are widely recognized and even fewer are considered to be authoritative. -A1candidate 21:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
    • A1candidate also deleted a number of sources including review articles. So what is the explanation for the blanket reverts? A1candidate, are you going to continue make blanket reverts including deleting a number of reviews? QuackGuru (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Reliable per WP:MEDRS. I'm not going to wade into this further for now due to lack of time aside from saying that press releases are plenty fine for policy statements by organizations like this. That's often how reputable medical organizations make their positions known. Press releases are not ok though for trying to assert scientific fact, and that's where you bring in review articles instead. That's a relatively clear distinction that seems like it's being missed here. Whether the source is secondary, tertiary, etc. is irrelevant in this conversation, partly seen in our article that describes when there can be ambiguity between the two as well. Instead, we look for reviews and statements from reputable medical organizations regardless of what degree of source we call them. Above, A1candidate may have a case from a WP:WEIGHT perspective on how noteworthy the organization actually is, but at my first glance it seems adequate. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Thats why we have the Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes page. For those types of statements. This page is a medical page for medical facts. The sources are on the Positions page, but they want to bring them here for medical claims. AlbinoFerret 22:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Looks like a problem with a WP:POVFORK in having that article. The two really should be the same. However, this RfC is about whether the source in question is reliable in this article on the safety of e-cigs. It seems to have a decent fit here regardless of what's going on at other articles. If an article is going to be titled safety of e-cigs, then you're going to need to discuss relevant medical organizations perspectives in that article. This article doesn't even have a section summarizing the organization statement page (which is the norm with daughter articles), so it's looking like there is some undue weight in the omission of summarizing the medical organizations. That's mainly why I'm not seeing a legitimate reason not to include it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
The two pages were originally under the Health effects section, It was not my choice to split them off instead of the section itself. It was Doc James who split them like this, at the same time. AlbinoFerret 23:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • COMMENT Claims that "position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies" are not "secondary sources" per WP:MEDRS are completely and literally incorrect per Misplaced Pages:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Definitions which has already been quoted above. Importantly Policies and guidelines cannot be changed locally. What is a MEDRS-acceptable secondary source, is one, be it here or there. Now, someone ~could~ argue that one or both of World Lung Foundation or the World Medical Association are not "nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies". That would be a reasonable argument under WP's policies and guidelines. I have never heard of the World Lung Foundation and based on a quick look wouldn't object to a decision that they are not major. I had never heard of World Medical Association but once I looked into it, it is clear that this is the UN of national medical associations (AMA is a member). This is definitely authoritative. Jytdog (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
The WMA might be fairly well-known, but their website says that they're mainly involved in the following non-clinical stuff:
  • Ethics
  • Human Rights
  • Public Health
  • Health Systems
  • Advocacy
  • Campaigns
In fact, I can't find anything on their website that suggests they issue regular medical guidelines, and I doubt this is the case since the WHO has always been the one doing most of it. In any case, the WMA's list of Topics in advocacy includes "Tobacco control" as one of their goals. Are their statements regarding E-cigarettes scientifically neutral? Probably not. -A1candidate 01:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Sources are not required to be "neutral", we as Misplaced Pages editors are. Also, if the only reliable medical sources are those who take no position about the obvious detrimental health effects of tobacco smoking, I suspect we will find it very hard to find any sources to use at all. Yobol (talk) 03:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
If there are detrimental health effects of e-cigarettes, they would be mentioned in review articles. Otherwise, there are none. -A1candidate 03:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I think we're cross talking. You mentioned "tobacco control" advocacy as a sign that a source is not "neutral"; my comment is that almost any relevant medical source recognizes that tobacco is detrimental to the health of individuals and would advocate for cessation of tobacco use. To find a source that says tobacco is good for you or not harmful would be a sign of an unreliable medical source. Yobol (talk) 04:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Prevention of patient's tobacco consumption is what most medical organizations aim for. Advocacy for tabacco control is what the WMA does. -A1candidate 04:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Controlling tobacco use is what every responsible medical organization does. I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree that advocating people stop smoking is somehow a disqualifying feature of a medical source. Yobol (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
That's only because you fail to understand two types of advocacy - Political advocacy, which is what the WMA does, and making clinical recommendations, which is what most medical organizations do. -A1candidate 04:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh yes, very political. Cough. Yobol (talk) 04:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Include, in segregated section There should be a section with a summary of significant statements, but kept apart from the purely medical sections. We all know research is scrambling to catch up with the growth of e-cigs, and is as yet unable to say anything about the long-term effects, so such statements are more significant here than for many long-established issues (like tobacco use for example). Johnbod (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The statements are absolutely relevant. The sources are reliable and no evidence to the contrary has been provided. The argument for excluding them are we must use reviews for e-cig articles. On the contrary, positions of organizations are also reliable. QuackGuru (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Include statements Per Doc James. The statements are pertinent to the section. Jim1138 (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please await the results of the RfC before starting to use this material, otherwise we are not respecting the processes of wikipedia. Status Quo before the RfC was that the material was not included, and to base even more material on this, is premature. --Kim D. Petersen 10:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Use secondary reviews If this viewpoint is significant enough then we should have no problems backing it up with secondary reviews that actually systematically analyse the studies that the quotes refer to.Levelledout (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
What does "respectable" have to do with the issue at hand? They are very reliable for the context of Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes. But here they are used in a context where we should use secondary MEDRS reviews, which are the most reliable sources for this kind of information. It seems though that editors either do not want to use secondary reviews, or alternatively want to double the effect of secondary sources, by duplicating it from tertiary ones,. --Kim D. Petersen 22:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Your concerns are not reflected in the policy. There is nothing in it about context, and we are using position statements by major reputable bodies because they hold strong weight. We do not use them to "double the effect" of a statement, but rather in order to provide proper facts as interpreted by the most influential and authoritative organizations in the world. This entire discussion is merely disruptive and detracts from any possibility of actually improving this article and wastes time that could be spent on other articles. The RfC should be closed as per WP:SNOWBALL. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 23:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
There is no policy that states that just because something is reliable that it then must be included. In fact editing is the process of sorting out what sources should and shouldn't be used, and what weight is attached to them. In this case there is significantly more weight put on secondary MEDRS reviews, which also are the most reliable of MEDRS sources - sources in the category of position statements are tertiary material for medical and safety information, and thus should per WP:MEDRS be used to find secondary sources, not as sources themselves. Why use less reliable material, that only repeats what we can already find in more reliable material? Can you answer me that? --Kim D. Petersen 23:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Health professionals consider the statements of major health bodies as inherently the most reliable, and so does Misplaced Pages. Data that contradicts the statements is valuable but it should be stated as carrying less weight, not more. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 10:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh well if you say that's true then it must be. Of course. Levelledout (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Of course. And can we move forward now? Cloudjpk (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
If you think it's such a farce then you should get it struck out at AN, no point in keep complaining about it here.Levelledout (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Include statements per Doc James and others. The fact that there are currently a few articles on e-cigs and/or their safety on wiki does not mean that relevant information should be excluded from any of those articles if it applies to the subject matter of the article's title. Softlavender (talk) 06:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion on positions

There never was a consensus to use only using reviews for medical claims on e-cig pages. We don't have different rules for e-cig pages. There is a long standing WP:CON to include other sources including WHO, the US Food and Drug Administration, and the World Lung Foundation. See Electronic_cigarette#Position_of_medical_organizations. Also see Electronic_cigarette#Harm_reduction for other sources such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that are not reviews. Claiming that only reviews can be used for medical claims runs against WP:MEDORG. This RfC has apparently turned into WP:SNOW. User:AlbinoFerret also deleted other sources including a formal policy statement. After User:AlbinoFerret could not delete the reliable source you then added context that was inappropriate. The inappropriate content smacked WP:POINT. See Talk:Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes/Archive_1#Original_research_2. User:AlbinoFerret, User:KimDabelsteinPetersen, and User:Levelledout appeared to be against using the formal policy statement written in a peer-reviewed journal for medical claims. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_21#Policy_Statement_from_the_American_Association_for_Cancer_Research_and_the_American_Society_of_Clinical_Oncology. User:AlbinoFerret last edit to the safety page deleted even more sources including a number of reviews. So what is your reason to make a full revert back to an old version while deleting a number of sources including reviews? User:AlbinoFerret, you were asked "Are there issues with the sources or the summary of said sources?" So far you have not specifically explained which new sources are a concern to justify your blanket revert. See Talk:Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes#Removal_of_mammoth_edit.

Let's review according to the start of this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&oldid=634900625 See WHO: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&oldid=634900625#cite_ref-WHOPosition2014_8-0 See US Food and Drug Administration (FDA): https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&oldid=634900625#cite_ref-FDA_nitrosamines_13-0 See The UK National Health Service https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&oldid=634900625#cite_ref-nhs_17-0 These sources are not reviews or formal policy statements written in a peer-reviewed journal but they are reliable according to WP:MEDORG. This confirms that there is a long standing WP:CON to include other reliable sources rather than just reviews or formal policy statements. QuackGuru (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The World Lung Foundation, in particular, appears to be a relatively new society founded in 2004 and may be of questionable notability (and reliability). Anyone can issue health statements, but not all are widely recognized and even fewer are considered to be authoritative. -A1candidate 21:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Founded in 2004 about ten years ago does not mean it is questionable. Where in WP:MEDORG supports your argument that a source founded about 10 years ago may be unreliable? QuackGuru (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
It is found in the phrase "reputable major medical and scientific bodies". -A1candidate 22:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
It is a reputable organisation according to the Global Health Workforce Alliance. QuackGuru (talk) 22:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Reputable for providing "assistance to governments and non-government organizations", but not reputable for issuing medical guidelines. -A1candidate 22:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Since the World Lung Foundation is a reputable organisation it is reliable for the medical claims.QuackGuru (talk) 23:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Which part of this article indicates that it is reliable or reputable? -A1candidate 23:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Here is another ref. "WLF is one of five coordinating partners of the Bloomberg Initiative to Reduce Tobacco Use, which focuses on low and middle income countries, where more than two-thirds of the world’s smokers live." QuackGuru (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
What you've just showed me is a job offer in a WordPress blog. Can I consider that an indicator of reliability or notability? No. -A1candidate 23:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
We are not using a WordPress blog. We are using a statement made by the World Lung Foundation that has a good reputation to help prevent and manage lung disease. QuackGuru (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Being a member of the GHWA simply means that the WLF does a lot of good work in developing countries. It does not automatically make it an authoritative organization for medical guidelines. -A1candidate 23:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Since they do a lot of good work in developing countries regarding tobacco control it makes them an expert on the topic. See "Essentially e-cigarette companies are selling nicotine addiction," said Dr. Neil Schluger, chief scientific officer for the World Lung Foundation, which advocates for tobacco control." QuackGuru (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
No. Reliability does not depend on the amount of good work one does. -A1candidate 20:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
They do a lot of good work around the world on the topic of tobacco control, which makes them a major organisation. QuackGuru (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Where do these sources indicate that it is a major organization? -A1candidate 22:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
The American Cancer Society and World Lung Foundation jointly released the The Tobacco Atlas, third edition, which is currently available worldwide in several languages. That is as major as it gets on tobacco control. QuackGuru (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Mammoth edit adding position statements

Quack added a ton, all without discussing any of it. diff He added position statements, which are still being discussed as additions in the above RFC. AlbinoFerret 23:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

After I removed it, quack reverted it. There is no discussion of such a mammoth change to the article. AlbinoFerret 23:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
There is a discussion for the positions. See Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettes#Positions. The consensus so far is to include them. QuackGuru (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Since the RFC is only days old, it is way to soon to draw conclusions. Large changes should be discussed before making the edits. Not just that some sources but specifically whats to be added. 17,450 characters isnt just large, its huge. Making it all at one time is another problem, discuss changes first and in manageable pieces. AlbinoFerret 13:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Clearly the whole point in having an RFC is to determine consensus. But what QG is saying is that even though the RFC is nowhere near finished they can determine the consensus themselves. Therefore there's no need for an uninvolved editor to come in, close the RFC and determine consensus because QG can just do it themselves. Not only that they can perform yet another massive edit on that basis. Rigghttt.... Levelledout (talk) 14:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
This is a tempest in a teapot. You guys are getting buried in your attempt to override major Misplaced Pages sourcing guidelines via a local RFc, and even if you had succeeded you'd have been reversed in administrative review. Maybe best to save your ammo for a fight in which you have a defensible position and are not massively outnumbered. Formerly 98 (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Of course. The RFC has its uses but overriding major Misplaced Pages sourcing guidelines is not one of them. It would nice to move forward here. Cloudjpk (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually I haven't even really looked at the RFC in detail. All I have noticed is that a particular editor, not for the first time, comes along and makes a massive edit and then gives the reason above to justify it which is not a valid one. The edit as usual contains highly contentious, vague, partisan statements. Sourcing guidelines are not the be-all-and-end-all of Misplaced Pages and even the sourcing guidelines themselves state that compliance does not guarantee inclusion. Regardless of sourcing, neutrality has to respected and consensus has to be sought. You can't trump those things either. So no actually, I don't think its justified to ignore an ongoing RFC merely because something complies with one particular guideline.Levelledout (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

By reverting the entire edit you are attributing WP:BADFAITH, and are improperly removing viable content because you disapprove of including a minor portion of it. There is nothing that stands against making major edits, and studies have been provided that show that most Misplaced Pages content is made through major edits. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 23:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Where is the discussion of the edits? And quite a bit of this mammoth edit is referencing the sources that are under discussion at the RfC. And since it is quite obvious from the fact that it gets reverted that the edits are controversial. It is indeed WP:BADFAITH to keep inserting it against consensus and in the face of a running RfC. I would suggest that editors try to add/discuss individual additions that are not part of the running RfC - instead of doing massive insertions that they know that there isn't consensus for! --Kim D. Petersen 23:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree, smaller edits should be brought up in discussion and then the discussion can lead to an edit. These mammoth edits are hard to break apart. Quack did this in secret, building a huge edit in his sandbox without any discussion and dumping it in all at once. He had more than enough opportunity to bring the edits up in pieces seeing how he started building on Feb 10th. AlbinoFerret 02:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
You misunderstand when you use the term secret. The sole reason for the WP:Sandbox is for experimenting without disturbing main space content, and using it is not per se contentious as you seem to assume. If you believe any of the individual statements are subject to the RfC you should take them up appropriately, instead of blanket deleting major additions. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 10:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
No,, this wasnt just experimenting. 16 days of building on edits without discussion is a real problem when you are planning on making a mammoth edit. This wasnt perfecting the way it looks in a few hours and then adding a little bit to the article. This was just adding, and adding day after day without discussing it with any editor and then dumping 16,414 characters into the article. You cant put lipstick on that pig. AlbinoFerret 12:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
The size of the edit is irrelevant, bring up your concerns instead of deleting because "it's too large". -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 13:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
The size is irrelevant? I dont think so, its about 1/4th of the present articles size. WP:CAUTIOUS deals with this, its policy to discuss major changes to the article. 16,414 characters is more than the definition of a major change. It isnt just because its to large, its just good practice to discuss edits. Making them smaller to make discussions easer is the best way to get inclusion, unless you want to discuss this for a long time because of a lack of focus. But specific edits still have not been brought forth.AlbinoFerret 13:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The size of the edit is irrelevant as an argument against it, at least as long as no individual concerns have been raised. Start by actually commenting on what you disagree with in the edit if you wish to dispute it. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 21:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The size does matter per WP:CAUTIOUS, it was never discussed. The edit also contains position statements, they are not suitable for making medical claims. AlbinoFerret 22:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Your making vague objections that position statements are unreliable but in the RfC most editors disagree with you. QuackGuru (talk) 22:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
The RFC is far from over, it is only days old, and so far is at no consensus. AlbinoFerret 22:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Removal of mammoth edit

QuackGuru added about 19k characters of edits without discussion, including one 16k character edit. What is the consensus for keeping the edit? It is against WP:CAUTIOUS and should have been discussed. AlbinoFerret 06:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Like I said. There plenty of discussion for the positions. See Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettes#Positions. The consensus has resulted in WP:SNOW. QuackGuru (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
The edits themselves were never discussed. A majority of the sources were never discussed, and none were discussed before adding them. AlbinoFerret 18:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
If you're aware of an unreliable source, please identify it. That would help improve the page. Cloudjpk (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Are there issues with the sources or the summary of said sources? Not "liking" material is not justification for removal. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
It isnt just not liking the material. There are issues with some of the sources, currently the subject of a RFC. There are also NPOV issues. There is a WP:CAUTIOUS issue in that a mammoth edit was done without any discussion or consensus. AlbinoFerret 22:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
According to the Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettes#Positions discussion there are no issues with the sources per WP:SNOW. QuackGuru (talk) 22:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
User:AlbinoFerret, you were asked "Are there issues with the sources or the summary of said sources?" So far you have not specifically explained which new sources are a concern to justify your blanket revert and there is a clear consensus for the the positions of the organisations. QuackGuru (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
This is the discussion. User:AlbinoFerret, so why did you delete so many sources including reviews against MEDRS? QuackGuru (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
User:AlbinoFerret, the votes for the positions is 12 to include and 4 to exclude. So far there is a broad consensus to include them. After 2 weeks there is no specific argument to exclude so many sources, including reviews such as (PMID 24732159) and (PMID 24732160) and (PMID 25572196). So what is the reason to making a full revert back to an older version? QuackGuru (talk) 00:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

"by far a less harmful alternative to smoking and significant health benefits are expected"

In all of the 13 references to the PMC 4110871 MEDRS review, why is there no representation of this sentence? "Currently available evidence indicates that electronic cigarettes are by far a less harmful alternative to smoking and significant health benefits are expected in smokers who switch from tobacco to electronic cigarettes." EllenCT (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

"A 2014 systematic review concluded that the risks of e-cigarettes have been exaggerated by health authorities and stated that it is apparent that there may be some remaining risk accompanied with e-cigarette use, though the risk of e-cigarette use is likely small compared to smoking tobacco." It is in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
"Risk ... is likely small" doesn't correctly reflect "by far less harmful". Nor is there any representation of "significant health benefits are expected in smokers who switch." EllenCT (talk) 15:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
The part "is likely small" is summarising a different part of the source. The part "significant health benefits are expected in smokers who switch" is probably a better fit for Electronic cigarette#Harm reduction. I will try to summarise the part "by far less harmful" in the body. QuackGuru (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm done with adding the part "by far less harmful" to my sandbox. I rewrote the text and added in-text attribution. QuackGuru (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure we have a range of sources that take different perspectives. A summary is "The limited evidence suggests that e-cigarettes are probably safer than traditional cigarettes" Safety needs to be considered on both a population and an individual basis. If e-cigs renormalize smoking and end up increasing the use of traditional cigs they cause harm. If a single individual switches from tradition cigs to e-cigs it results in benefit. If a non smoker starts e-cigs it will result in harm. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

So speculation (nonsmokers might) override real things (much less harm)? --Kim D. Petersen 18:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
We have high quality refs that say both which is why we summarize as we have. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
"High quality" speculation is still just speculation.--InfiniteBratwurst (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
No, the sources with which you agree are summarized accurately, and you are trying to keep the sources with which you disagree from being summarized correctly. Has it occurred to you that someone in your position should be held to a higher standard of impartiality than ordinary editors? EllenCT (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Intro needs a big trim and tidy

Regardless of all the other issues, this article is marred by a very poor intro. The main fault is that its chock full of heavily ref'd arguments back and forth - when it should be a simple summary of the contents of the body. Keep the detail and refs down there. I intend to have a look at tidying it up when the protection is lifted. Snori (talk) 09:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I feel it's important we keep the references, just because it is so contentious of a topic (see WP:LEDE). As for cutting it down, please do! -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
For these types of articles the refs should stay in the lede per WP:LEDECITE. User:Snori, you don't have to wait for unprotection. Please edit my sandbox. The lede should stay at four paragraphs according to WP:LEADLENGTH for this article. QuackGuru (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
User:Snori, this change is WP:OR and does not summarise the body. For example, "Electronic cigarettes were first been developed in 2003" is not about safety. The part "The safety of electronic cigarettes is an ongoing area of debate." is unsourced. QuackGuru (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Chill out. I'm working on getting some wording together and doing this in my userspace/sandbox because that's convenient. Although you can clearly see that area, I don't think it's helpful for you or anyone else to comment on it while it's underway, because it will undoubtedly be initially far worse that the current lead. Thanks for the offer, but I also don't think it makes much sense for me to edit in your area. Snori (talk) 19:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
User:Snori, I trimmed the lede again. QuackGuru (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Anyone can edit the QuackGurusandbox to trim the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Refs are key and should not be trimmed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I strongly agree with Snori.
This is the fifth time I have been summoned to this article by a RfC. When I first saw it the article was poor, and it continues to get worse. It is very long and unclear, containing no information accessible to the ordinary reader, who may well have an valid interest in the subject. It appears to be written, not for ordinary readers, not even for ordinary doctors, but for specialists in the field. I wish it could be much shorter, and say something like this:
"Electronic cigarettes are a danger to health because they administer nicotine, a toxic and addictive substance which can cause < list of diseases, with references >. However, those who are addicted to nicotine may prefer them to tobacco-based cigarettes, which as well as nicotine also administer tar and < list of other chemicals, with references >, which can cause lung cancer and < list of other diseases, with references >."
I realise this is never going to happen.Maproom (talk) 08:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I also agree that the lede needs a lot of work. Its overly difficult to read and complex. Per WP:LEAD the lede should be easy to read and have the major controversies, but it should be more neutral that the edit you suggest. AlbinoFerret 13:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
No, the lede does not need a lot of work. You have not pointed out what is the specific issue. The lede should be four paragraphs per WP:LEADLENGTH for this lengthy article. QuackGuru (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes 4 paragraphs is appropriate for an article of this length (ignoring whether or not the article should be trimmed) but that is a general guideline—but not absolute rule. It should also provide an accessible overview per MOS:INTRO, Assess material based on relative importance to the subject of the article per MOS:BEGIN and also should tell the nonspecialist reader what (or who) the subject is. The real issue with it is that it is badly written. I would also say that there is some weight issue in the distribution of information. It's poorly written and like the whole article suffers from repetition and bloat. SPACKlick (talk) 19:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
User:Maproom, the source says "Consequently, safety concerns exist regarding e-cigarette user exposure to harmful and potentially harmful constituents (HPHCs), including nicotine, which has the potential to cause addiction and other adverse events." For the lede I kept the wording concise. The lede now says "There are safety issues to being exposed to potentially lethal nicotine from e-cigarette use." QuackGuru (talk) 03:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
QuackGuru Please point out in the source where it says people are exposed to potentially lethal doses from e-cigarette use. AlbinoFerret 03:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I tweaked the wording. It now says "There are safety issues to e-cigarette users from being exposed to potentially lethal nicotine." QuackGuru (talk) 03:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
"There are safety issues to e-cigarette users from being exposed to potentially lethal nicotine." Ref to: Cheng, T. (2014). "Chemical evaluation of electronic cigarettes". Tobacco Control 23 (Supplement 2): ii11–ii17. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051482. ISSN 0964-4563. PMC 3995255. PMID 24732157.

- Unfortunately I can see nothing in Cheng to justify "potentially lethal" at all, as two others have now pointed out. Johnbod (talk) 03:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, neither could I, but it was possible I had missed it so I asked. AlbinoFerret 03:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
The source says "...safety concerns exist regarding e-cigarette user exposure to harmful and potentially harmful constituents (HPHCs), including nicotine...". QuackGuru (talk) 03:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Seriously, you thought it was ok to jump from "harmful" to "lethal"? Johnbod (talk) 03:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I changed it to "toxic" and you changed it to "harmful". Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 03:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
The question is, why did you change it to "potentially lethal" in the first place? Because that fails WP:V and looks a lot like POV pushing, doesn't it?--InfiniteBratwurst (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I think the real question is, can anyone phrase "There are safety issues to e-cigarette users..." in English? maybe "Some have safety concerns over users being exposed to potentially harmful nicotine" or "there are safety concerns over..." or "There are potential dangers from..." Because it's currently worded really unreadably. SPACKlick (talk) 07:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
That is awkward, isn't it. Hrm. Perhaps "concerns the product isn't safe" or "concerns the product presents risks to"? Better yet, put it in an active voice: "health and safety experts are concerned about risks from"? Cloudjpk (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
The wording was recently changed. See "E-cigarette users are exposed to potentially harmful nicotine." QuackGuru (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that adresses the point at all. "Exposed to potentially harmful nicotine" is very different from "Experts are concerned about several potential risks from the product" I like Cloudjpk's "health and safety experts are concerned about risks from" but it will need a ref for health and safety experts (experts could be changed for proffessionals, bodies etc as apt for ref) SPACKlick (talk) 10:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
We should not include an WP:ASSERT violation in the lede when there is no serious dispute. The specific details are in the body anyhow. QuackGuru (talk) 21:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The source says toxicants

The source says "The levels of toxicants..." A synonym for toxicants is chemical constituents. QuackGuru (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. There is no scientific definition of what a "chemical constituent" even is (as everything is made of chemicals), let alone agreement that "chemical constituents" is a synonym for toxicant. Formerly 98 (talk) 02:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
The paragraph is titled "Chemical Constituents". Then they explain about the "toxicants". I'd rather use a neutral word rather than poisons. QuackGuru (talk) 02:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, it may be in the source, but its incorrect. I'd challenge you to name a non-chemical constituent of any material or object. Formerly 98 (talk) 02:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I will change the word since it is an issue. QuackGuru (talk) 03:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Formerly 98 (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
The paragraph is titled "Chemical Constituents" but the specific text says "toxicants". I went ahead and changed the word. QuackGuru (talk) 03:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


On a semi related note, where in the source can I find that using e-cigarettes exposes people to lethel doses of nicotine as this claim says "There are safety issues to being exposed to potentially lethal nicotine from e-cigarette use." AlbinoFerret 03:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Claiming that e-cig use exposes people to lethal doses of nicotine is just stupid. It definitely should not be in the article.--InfiniteBratwurst (talk) 03:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Another new study

Dual use of e-cigs and cigarettes increases chances of smoking cessation by up to 320%. The evidence is stacking up. When is this shambles of an article going to start reflecting it?--InfiniteBratwurst (talk) 11:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

You need to give it time for the evidence to filter through to secondary sources. There are several interesting meta-analyses expected later this year. I think the first step in de-shambles~ing the article would be writing what is already there in clearer language. SPACKlick (talk) 11:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree. We don't need to mention every single study, even if it doesn't say anything worthwhile. The whole environmental impact section needs to go for example, because it doesn't say anything about environmental impact. Given what's actually known it should really be a pretty short article.--InfiniteBratwurst (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with deleting entire relevant paragraphs. I just added a more concise paragraph about nicotine and expanded the page a bit. QuackGuru (talk) 01:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
The last thing this article needs is expanding. What it needs is a drastic pruning to get rid of all the he said/she said rubbish. Just because a study exists does not mean its conclusions - especially if they boil down to "We don't know" - are worthy of including in the article. Please stop adding trivia.--InfiniteBratwurst (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed removal of Environmental Impact section

This section adds nothing to the article. It's basically just speculation, as shown by the endless repetition of "no studies have been conducted into...". I propose that we remove it until some actual research has been done.--InfiniteBratwurst (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's reliable, because it doesn't actually say anything. Hard to get more trivial than that.--InfiniteBratwurst (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
This isn't a secondary source, high quality or otherwise. Secondary sources are reviews of primary sources, not random speculation.--InfiniteBratwurst (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Doc James. The concerns are from quality secondary sources, they should not be downplayed because they are unsubstantiated when they make no secret of it. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 22:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Where is the secondary source? There cannot be one without primary sources, which Cheng himself admits do not exist.--InfiniteBratwurst (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I counted 21 references. QuackGuru (talk) 23:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
None of which support the claims you made in the article, because those are all "No research has been conducted into..." That section adds nothing and should be removed until there is some research.--InfiniteBratwurst (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Every sentence reflects the WP:TRUTH using reliable WP:MEDRS reviews. QuackGuru (talk) 03:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Every sentence starts "No research has been conducted into..." or "Nothing is known about...". Therefore this is not a secondary source. The section says nothing. I think you have WP:OWN issues with it.--InfiniteBratwurst (talk) 11:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • It is too long and should be the last section of all. That's if we think that "Environmental Impact" is actually a "safety" issue at all. I suspect that we don't so treat it for other products. Johnbod (talk) 04:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Notice

The behavior of some editors of this article is being considered at AN/I. BMK (talk) 01:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Categories: