Misplaced Pages

Does anyone else have any ideas for ordering this? Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

All of the above maintain the challenged notion that these devices are "medical", whereas they are currently regarded legally, by the scientific literature, and by the public as general consumer products. "Contraindications"? Really?

I suggest we stop trying to cram a square peg into a round hole and recognize the reality that e-cigarettes are a disruptive technology (, ) that does not fit the definition of either tobacco product or medical product. Let's develop a structure to this article that acknowledges this verifiable fact rather than attempt to shoehorn this distinct category into existing ill-fitting frameworks. Mihaister (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

AIHA white paper

Material sourced to this dubious publication, which I removed, has been reverted into the article. First of all, this is not peer reviewed, or PubMed indexed; also not a reliable MEDRS. The sheer number of spelling and grammar errors in that text should give any unbiased editor pause. Mihaister (talk) 01:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

"Per MEDRS: "Ideal sources for biomedical material include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published secondary 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 recognised expert bodies."

The American Industrial Hygiene Association is an expert body recognized as an authority on occupational exposures by

• The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
• The EPA
• OSHA
• The Department of Energy, and
• The U.S. Navy

Formerly 98 (talk) 04:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Please, not this argument again. Are you honestly equating the prominence of AIHA with the National Academy of Sciences or WHO (as "prominence" is exemplified at Misplaced Pages:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Medical_and_scientific_organizations)? Mihaister (talk) 04:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Read the comment again please. This citation is MEDRS compliant if it is an official statement of a nationally recognized expert body. I have demonstrated that. I said nothing about the prominence of AIHA with the National Academy of Science, nor do I need to to show that this is a MEDRS compliant citation. Please don't put words in my mouth to set up straw man arguments. Formerly 98 (talk) 12:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The link posted by Mihaister clearly compares a reputable major scientific and medical body to those with similar stature to NIH, US National Academy, NIH et cetera. The AIHA is a run of the mll non-profit/trade association and not a nationally recognized expert body. This edit should be removed. Doors22 (talk) 12:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Formerly98. If other high quality sources find the AIHA guidelines useful, I think a one sentence addition is warranted. Yobol (talk) 13:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Doors22 is a WP:SPA account that is upset with edits, made by myself and supported by two other editors, to the Finasteride article. Doors, please review WP:HOUND, you don't want to go down this road. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

If this is the case, then that is an issue for WP:ANI - not one writing about here. --Kim D. Petersen 13:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I find this one incredibly amusing. Had this been information from ASH UK, a british health organization working closely with the UK gov. on tobacco issues, then it would have soundly been removed, as has such information in the past. Standards are great to have, so double standards must be doubly good. --Kim D. Petersen 13:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It might be more useful to move this discussion forward to discuss the specific source presented rather than a hypothetical source no one has mentioned. It appears the AIHA guidelines is viewed as reliable by multiple government agencies, so I'm at a lost as to why we should not view them as reliable as well. Yobol (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It's wonderful Kim. There's nothing in life that gives me more pleasure than biased editing, selective application of sourcing standards, and deliberately producing NNPOV articles. And like so many others, I judge the success of my diabolical efforts to mislead and distort by the extent to which the articles I edit diverge from your own excruciating neutral and unbiased viewpoint. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Your sarcasm aside (which was amusing): I was talking about the fact that consensus so far on this article has been: Only WP:MEDRS secondary sources, preferrably reviews. In the odd case out, important organizations such as the FDA, WHO and CDC could be cited, but primarily for position statements or official reports. But this appears now to have changed. Or has it? I will with amusement watch when a harm reduction statement from an organization is proposed :) --Kim D. Petersen 13:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC) As a good example of why i'm commenting on double standards read this discussion. --Kim D. Petersen 13:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Use of non-peer reviewed white papers in a WP:PRIMARY aspect is not helping the situation. When you strongly argue MEDMOS and then include sources which do not comply, yet work towards your POV it becomes difficult to reach a compromise. I suggest you self revert. Arzel (talk) 13:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Position statements by recognized organizations (as appears to be the case here, where AIHA guidelines are used by multiple different governmental agencies) can be used per MEDRS. Note that this paper is not a primary source as you appear to be suggesting, but a secondary source. (Primary sources would, for example, be the paper that first analyzed the content of the e-cigarette aerosol; this white paper is referencing those type of studies, so is a secondary source). Yobol (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

As a compromise, I would also be OK with attributing the statement directly to the AIHA: instead of Industrial hygiene and indoor air quality reviews have found... use The AIHA states that..., as long as the use of the Offermann source is refactored appropriately. Zad68 13:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree direct intext attribution to the AIHA would be more appropriate in this case. Yobol (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with the attribution of AIHA as disucssed here and as now in the article. Refactoring Offermann does not mean removing it. Please stop doing so, unless and until there is consensus for its removal. Thank you. Cloudjpk (talk) 21:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers

ASHRAE isnt a MEDRS source in any way shape or form. The info in it is in the article already sourced to MEDRS sources in at least one other area if not more. I removed the revert of its removal. If anyone wants to discuss it. Here is the spot. AlbinoFerret (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

What is there to discuss? Not only is the Offerman paper an un-reviewed editorial in a non-MEDRS, non-PubMed source, it even lacks basic copy editing. Sigh... At this rate we'll soon be faced with citations to anti-smoker blogs held up as "notable MEDRS organizations" for sources... Mihaister (talk) 21:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

ETA: I note Cloudjpk, a WP:SPA (), has engaged in edit warring his addition of this source. , Mihaister (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, the ASHRAE source, convenience link here, appears to be published in ASHRAE Journal, which appears to be peer reviewed and is clearly a secondary source, specifically a review article (a literature review in format). It, however, is dubious with regards to being MEDRS compliant; I think publications like this would be fine in a non-health related section if it were discussing only emissions. However, using it in a health section and discussing the health effects probably crosses the line into health related material, and am fine leaving it out of that particular section as it is not MEDLINE indexed and health discussion is outside the scope of this journal. If someone were to create a separate section about aerosols which did not describe health related material, this would probably be an excellent source for that. Yobol (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC) As an aside, you really have to admire the chutzpah of Mihaister calling out someone else for being a SPA.

The thing is, all the claims are already in the article by MEDRS sources. Its not really needed. AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It adds environmental health expertise Cloudjpk (talk) 22:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it doesnt its engineers. This isnt AIHA which has some medical reference, though low. Engineers are not medical in any way AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It's Environmental_health Cloudjpk (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

No its not, they are not doctors or health experts but engineers. The argument may have worked for AIHA, it doesnt work for ASHRAE. They work on heaters and air conditioners.AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Citations have already been provided on this Environmental Health Cloudjpk (talk) 23:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You have placed a link to a section posted on a page that says they work with standards groups. They are not a prominent health body as described on WP:MEDRS. AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Please see the content on the page. ASHRAE has recognized expertise in environmental helath and is active in applying the best science to protecting health and safety. ASHRAE standards based on this protect the health of literally millions of people. Cloudjpk (talk) 01:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

What you need is not a statement on the ASHRAE site, but on a site of a prominent medical body like the CDC or WHO recognizing them. Anyone can put things on their own site saying anything they want. That they help design standards in buildings does not indicate they have medical expertise which is what is necessary to make health claims. They dont have the credentials for that, they are engineers.Perhaps if they were talking about airflow, or filtration and fan systems or heating and air conditioning you could use them in a non medical claim or section. AlbinoFerret (talk) 02:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

All the standards ASHRAE has produced deal with airflow, heating, and air conditioning. They have no expertise in Health matters. The claim is about Health risks. AlbinoFerret (talk) 02:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It is simply not the case that ASHRAE has no expertise in health matters. ASHRAE standards are designed to protect health, and are used for exactly that by . It has developed expertise, and it is accepted as a source of expertise, in environmental health. Cloudjpk (talk) 04:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The link you gave says ssites them and their standards for ventilation and heating and cooling buildings. That is not medical expertise. The only way they can be a WP:MEDRS source is if they have medical expertise. and are recognized by prominent groups as having medical expertise. You can not have a medical claim in the Health effects section without a WP:MEDRS source with medical expertise. Having expertice in general, airflow, or about heating and cooling does not give you the right to make claims like this. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't recall claiming that they were doctors. You are welcome to ask your doctor what OSHA's 8 hour PEL is for exposure to respirable dust, and what's EPA's 24 hour PM2.5 standard, and why they are different. Please understand if he does not know; that's not his field. Medicine is not environmental health. ASHRAE standards are designed to protect health. Their standards development process is based on science, medicine, toxicology, and health and safety research. They are recognized for their expertise in environmental health. Cloudjpk (talk) 17:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Thats the whole point, they need to be medical refrences to make health claims. Thats why you cant use the ASHRAE citation for the claim. They are not recognised by anyone except as experts in airflow, aand heating and refrigeration. But a medical refrence is needed, you are running out of time to find one. 17:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote. Medicine is not environmental health. The source provides expertise in environmental health and indoor air quality risk evaluation specifically. This is not a purely medical question. You are welcome to ask your doctor what OSHA's 8 hour PEL is for exposure to respirable dust, and what's EPA's 24 hour PM2.5 standard, and see :) Cloudjpk (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

ASHRAE is a recognized expert in air quality whose are accredited by ANSI, widely adopted, and become the basis of law, code, and policy. It has related expertise in Environmental Health. Its standards and expertise in indoor air quality are referenced by industry and government . ASHRAE Journal is a high quality . It is relevant to questions of indoor air quality and recommended policy responses. It is cited here with regard to those questions only. I would be fine with placing it in a separate section on aerosols only. Cloudjpk (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Even if we grant you that everything you state above is true... then there are some serious problems still. The article is based upon their interpretation of a single primary source (Goniewicz et al (2013)), which is referenced in all of the newer WP:MEDRS secondary review articles, including Burstyn(2014) which covers the same topic area, and which comes to the contrary conclusion as your article. And that means that per WP:MEDREV your reference simply doesn't qualify as sufficiently good material. --Kim D. Petersen 23:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)As a note: Even Goniewicz doesn't reach that conclusion, although Grana does, and Grana is cited for this already in the article - this is not a pile-on. --Kim D. Petersen 23:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It provides peer-reviewed environmental health analysis and expertise; Grana does not. It complements Burstyn(2014) nicely by using NSRLs and CRELs where Burstyn uses TLVs, which is also why WP:MEDREV doesn't apply: the same question wasn't examined. Cloudjpk (talk) 23:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You are wasting time arguing when you should be loooking for a WP:MEDRS source. The claim wont last long without it. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote. I explained why the expertise is relevant and the source high quality. Removing it is not supported by consensus. Cloudjpk (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Removal is supported by consensus if you dont have a WP:MEDRS source. Saying it isnt will not change the facts. You are wasting time you would be better served finding said source. AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I have requested temporary page protection because of Cloudjpk's actions' AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC) I have tagged it as needing a WP:MEDRS one should be found or the claim will be removed. Persistent revert/replacing against consensus will result in a edit warring notification on the Admin edit war/3rr board AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I take exception to so marking it. Environmental health expertise is cited appropriately. Cloudjpk (talk) 23:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Take exception all you want, but you are going against consensus. Everyone here, even Yobol says it isnt MEDRS. Find a citation that is WP:MEDRS, or it will be removed tomorrow, if you replace it I will file a notice on the Administers war edit/3rr board for your actions for going against consensus and consistently replacing it (an edit war). AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

No, there's no consensus for excluding it. I see multiple editors who believe it should included. Please note that whether it's MEDRS not the same question. Thank you. Cloudjpk (talk) 23:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Every editor here has said it doesnt belong in the health section, Aresol is a subsection of Health effects. So what you are saying is untrue. Even if it wasnt in a health section, by making health claims a MEDRS is needed. AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

No, there are editors who have not said that. However I said I would be fine with placing it in a separate section for Aerosols, and I'm still fine with that; is that something we can work with? Cloudjpk (talk) 00:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Regardless where its placed in the article, if it makes health claims, which it does, it needs a WP:MEDRS source. There is no one that supports its use without a WP:MEDRS source. You are going against consensous, I am giving you time to find a WP:MEDRS source, if you cant find one it will be removed. If its replaced without a WP:MEDRS source, you will be reported for edit warring. Site one in this section that does. AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Show me the consensus for excluding it. Or help develop a consensus for placement. Cloudjpk (talk) 01:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Read this section, no one says they are a MEDRS. No one but you. Not even Yobol who usually stands with the medical editors and pretty much agrees that things like risks should be included. That is consensus. There is no way to make the information you want to include, health risk claims, included without a WP:MEDRS source. You need to find one, and fast. The placing of the tag isnt an indefinite allowing of the claims to stay, but it is giving you a chance to find a source. Do yourself a favor and find one, or remove it yourself, because it wont be long. Per WP:NOCITE if you dont find a source in a reasonable time, and a day is reasonable, it can and will be removed. AlbinoFerret (talk) 02:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, please read I wrote. I didn't say the source was MEDRS. I agreed with other editors that it is a reliable source for the content in question. There is no consensus to exclude it. If you do so, you are the one acting without consensus. Cloudjpk (talk) 03:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

This is going in circles, by your own admission its not WP:MEDRS I could remove it right now. You still have time to find one but you are wasting everyones time going round in circles. No, you can say I dont have consensus, but you cant point to one other editor in this section who agrees with you. You saying something isnt proof. Find one or remove it. AlbinoFerret (talk) 03:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course I can point to editors who agree that this source should be cited. So can you. It's right here on the Talk page; couldn't be plainer. Cloudjpk (talk) 03:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I dont think you realize how accommodating I am being giving you the time to find one. I am trying to work with you by giving you the chance to find one, if you cant I will have to remove it per WP:NOCITE. AlbinoFerret (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I am happy to work with you and others, and have already offered a way to move forward: what section would this be apppropriate in? If you wish to achieve consensus, there's a way to do it. If you would rather misuse WP:MEDRS as a weapon, that is your choice. Cloudjpk (talk) 03:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

This section cant be used in any section because its making a medical claim of risks without a WP:MEDRS source. There is consensus that medical claims cant be used in an article without one, and a secondary source. Your arguing and asking and not doing the easiest thing, which is finding the WP:MEDRS source. If you cant find one its likely it doesnt even pass WP:WEIGHT. Your not working with anyone, working with the other editors would entail you finding said source, or removing claim. I have went over and over this and you still dont get it. So find a WP:MEDRS source, or it gets removed per WP:NOCITE. This isnt using anything as a weapon, but following WP guidelines and policy. WP:RS of wich WP:MEDRS relies is one of the 5 pillars, there is no way around it. AlbinoFerret (talk) 03:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

That's your view; other editors see it differently. If you would like to work towards consensus, offers have been made. If you would rather misuse WP:MEDRS as a weapon, that is your choice. Cloudjpk (talk) 03:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Name one, at this present time, in this section other than yourself. AlbinoFerret (talk) 03:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll be happy to name other editors who agree this source should be cited. Tell you what though, how about you do that? They're right on this page.

I'm also happy to discuss which section is most appropriate. This is the third time I've offered that as a way to build consensus. You have yet to respond. Do you want to build consensus? Cloudjpk (talk) 04:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

WNT, Yobol, Kim, Mihaister, and myself all disagree with you that ASHRE can be used to make medical claims. There is no one left. I have told you how you can work with everyone else to build consensus multiple times, by finding a WP:MEDRS reference for the medical claim you are making. There is no other way short of removing all medical claims in the sentence and that will leave basically nothing. These ongoing circular arguments will make great diffs later if you dont find a WP:MEDRS source and then replace the section when it is removed per WP:NOCITE because its disruptive to consensus building. 12:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

WNT, Yobol, and I agree this source carries weight and should be cited. There is ongoing discussion on where it should be placed in the article. If you would like to build consensus, you are welcome to join that discussion. If you would rather engage in WP:MEDRS wars, that is your choice. Cloudjpk (talk) 16:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Both Yobol and Wnt say that the source could be used to make claims that are not medical in a non medical section. But you are making claims that are medical so no matter what section you place it in it needs a WP:MEDRS source. AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I have a personal dislike for ASHRAE because I blame them for pushing ridiculous, self-serving air quality standards that leave modern buildings sounding like one giant fan room, and make a mockery of claims of improved energy efficiency. Nonetheless, this source is valuable and should be kept. You can say that it is not a reliable MEDRS source, and in a sense that may be true - I would prefer to pass through to the original primary studies the author cites. Nonetheless, the organization is (rightly or wrongly) trusted and certainly should be cited by Misplaced Pages for routine engineering measurements like the level of formaldehyde in the air, and for introducing scientific concepts like the distinction between a vapor and an aerosol (this was discussed on this page a few topics up, and this is a good source for it). If you must invoke the loathsome MEDRS, I would at least see it confined to the narrow space of actual health claims, as opposed to how the e-cigarette works (which it also explains) and so forth. Wnt (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

MEDRS sources are only really needed in the health sections, Aresol is in the health section and full of health claims. Each claims in the ASHREA statement are all in the article sourced to MEDRS sources. This is a problem of duplication using a non MEDRS source to make health claims. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, that goes back to the RfC above - I don't think we should have the basic description of the consumer device, which was not designed by doctors, under a medical section at all. It should be an early, separate section that simply explains what it is and how it works. Wnt (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my comment, in the article as it is now, MEDRS sources are not required in say the Components section if they dont make a health claim. 23:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Placement of Offerman(2014)

Offerman(2014) has been recognized as a source worth citing in the article. However, there has been some disagreement as to exactly where to place it. I am open to suggestions. I'm starting this section for clarity and with a view to building consensus. Cloudjpk (talk) 17:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Please stop misrepresenting the discussion. There is no agreement that Offermann's editorial should be cited anywhere. That article is a WP:PRIMARY re-analysis of the same data presented by Goniewicz et al. (2013), which is already discussed in the article. There is no evidence that the Offermann article has even been peer-reviewed; and all of the statements that could possibly be made based on it are already covered in the article using far more reliable sources. The rest of the claims are already covered by the AIHA internal paper, which is already in the article. There is no reason to insist on the Offermann paper unless you're pursuing some vested interest or specific POV.

As an aside, note how Offermann manufactured a bunch of risk criteria for his calculations, for compounds that do not have established CRELs. This is an indication that no peer-review has been performed or that it's been woefully inept, as such practice of inventing risk thresholds for GRAS chemicals (such as propylene glycol) is not only inconsistent with risk assessment guidelines, it is academic misconduct. Mihaister (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Please get your facts straight. Offerman(2014) is not an editorial. There are multiple editors who agree that it carries weight and should be cited. The publication is peer reviewed. And please take your bashing elsewhere; I have created this section for discussion of placement of the source. I am working toward consensus. If you would like to be part of that, you are welcome. Cloudjpk (talk) 17:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Offerman has been recognised as a possible source for non medical claims. But that is not how you are using it inside a medical section. Offernam is part of a journal for ASHRAE or American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers. They are not a medical group. All editors in the section above except you say its not a WP:MEDRS. Per WP:MEDSCI "Be careful of material published in a journal that lacks peer review or that reports material in a different field" the claims in the article are medical ASHRAE is not, ASHRAE is a society of engineers who expertice is airflow, refrigeration, heating , and air conditioning not health care. Find another source or the claims and the link will be removed. AlbinoFerret (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, now we're getting somewhere! What would be examples of a non medical section? Thanks! Cloudjpk (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

History would be one, but since your using it for medical claims it doesnt matter what section you place it in, it would still need a WP:MEDRS source. AlbinoFerret (talk) 18:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Suppose we were using it for research and analysis on environmental health and safety, not necessarily medicine? What section(s) would work for that? Cloudjpk (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It would be a medical research regardless of the setting, and a any mention of risk or implying that there is a danger is a health impact claim would need a WP:MEDRS source. The only use of ASHRAE is air flow, refrigeration, heating and air conditioning if you can find some way to use that in an article. Offerman holds a M.S. in Mechanical Engineering. If you couldfind a paper by ASHRAE on the vertilation needed in a room full of people vaping they might be used, but this article is way beyond that, and doent have any of that information. 22:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry; the question is about environmental health not medicine. Both are good for your health; the two are not the same thing. And the question in view is which section(s) of this article would be appropriate for information on environmental health. Thanks! Cloudjpk (talk) 23:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that this organization is somewhat comparable to the people who write Material Safety Data Sheets (which are almost always pure guesswork where human toxicity is concerned, for obvious reasons). The MSDS may call a chemical an "irritant" or "poison", which is somewhat a medical claim, but it should still be citable if it represents how safety regulators treat it. We just should be clear that X considers it so, not that it is scientifically proven so. Wnt (talk) 23:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Even maximum exposures are medical, and engineers dont have the expertise to decide what a minimum or maximum exposure is because that is a health question because it has a health impact. ASHRAE is not recognized as medical by anyone. The only ASHRAE standards recognized by anyone are airflow and heating and cooling.AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You keep saying this. It wasn't true the first time you said it, either. Ample references have been provided. Nothing is stopping you from reading them. If you would like to help get to consensus, that would be helpful. Cloudjpk (talk) 04:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thats what really stops ASHRAE from being used, while they are in some way scientific, they are only recognized as experts because of standards they have set that are recognized. Those standards say nothing about exposure to specific chemicals. They are about airflow, or heating, refrigeration or air conditioning. This limits what they can be used for to the expertise they are recognized for. So, no, they cant really be used for exposures to chemicals because exposures are decided by medical study. The way the claim in the article is written, its pure medical. In the U.S., the Occupational Safety and Health Administration oversees MSDS and it is a major medical organization just like other countries they are part of the Health department, full of doctors and medical study, MSDS is a WP:MEDRS source because it is recognized as such by other major medical organizations and governments. But you couldnt use a MSDS journal (if one exists) to write a citation on how an airplane flies. Per WP:MEDSCI "Be careful of material published in a journal .... or that reports material in a different field" the claims in the article are medical ASHRAE is not medical and not recognized by anyone as medical, ASHRAE is a society of engineers whos expertise is airflow, refrigeration, heating , and air conditioning not health care. AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Those standards say nothing about exposure to specific chemicals oh wait

not health care "Among the references most often cited by a majority of existing standards, both national and international -- even though it is not legally binding -- are the norms published by ASHRAE...the acceptable quality of indoor air required for its occupants in order to prevent adverse health effects" Encyclopedia of Occupational Health and Safety, 1998. Stellman, Jeanne M (Editor). Emphasis mine. Cloudjpk (talk) 05:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You definitely have too rosy a view of MSDSes. It's hard for me to argue with you on ASHRAE because as it happens I do personally think they promulgate an absurdly strict standard on indoor carbon dioxide and particulates in order to sell more HVAC equipment (compared to the typical wigwam with a fire inside and a hole in the roof). Still, while I may not like their standards they're still data, and data is good. MEDRS can turn into a petty exclusion of non-medical viewpoints, and even when I feel those viewpoints are wrong (as in the carbon dioxide example) an encyclopedia should still document them. Wnt (talk) 03:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree! And I'm open to where in the article this one should be placed. Cloudjpk (talk) 04:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

In this particular case, the Offermann source is a WP:PRIMARY re-analysis of the Goniewicz data, which is already discussed by multiple reviews already cited in the article, including Grana and Burstyn. You are pushing the Offermann article to give WP:UNDUE weight to a low-quality source aiming to contradict or modify conclusions from high-quality reviews. This is not acceptable per Misplaced Pages policy. Mihaister (talk) 05:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

A re-analysis does not seem like a primary source. QuackGuru (talk) 06:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

If this is used in the future Mihaister, McNeil should come in. In fact I am thinking use of AIHA may have already opened the door. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Per the previous discussion, the 'version of record' has been published: it's time to introduce the arguments from that review. Mihaister (talk) 16:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

That was not a review and it was rejected. QuackGuru (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Dream on, Quack. The consensus was to add "attributed statements" once the VoR gets published, and it now has been. Mihaister (talk) 22:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic wording

A 2014 review, "while not listing them" stated there are concerns about pregnant women exposure to e-cigarette mist through direct use or via exhaled mist. The part "while not listing them" is unencyclopedic wording, unnecessary, and the source did say this. Every time a source does not list the specifics we don't need to say what the source did not say. I think at least women readers will know when a women is pregnant there is a concern for the fetus being exposed to the chemicals such as nicotine from the e-cigarette. The part "while not listing them" is POV editorialising and possibly OR. See Electronic cigarette#Aerosol. QuackGuru (talk) 06:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I would be careful using any unsourced information even if it presented in a review... Do remember that such sources contain both a summary of the science as well as the personal views of the researchers, this is particularly visible in the policy recommendations, and is another reason that one should never rely entirely on one review paper. Finally as for your "I think at least women readers will know...."... There is a general scare in the lay-population of anything that is "chemical" and using that as a reasoning is pure WP:NPOV. I've been wondering where that pregnant thing comes from, but no references are given to it (afaik) - so if it is a real and valid concern then we should have some background for it. --Kim D. Petersen 09:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I added more information from another source. QuackGuru (talk) 09:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Tobacco Harm Reduction

I see a lot of biased edits happened today, removing harm reduction claims and placing them elsewhere, and moving Harm Reduction. If Harm reduction is moved under safety, so should cessation because its done to remove all risks. AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I moved down the discussion of harm reduction as the emphasis in secondary sources is in discussion of smoking cessation and safety profiles. Discussion as a purely tobacco harm reduction tool is discussed in fewer sources and receives less emphasis, so it should be further down in the list in a discussion of health effects. It also makes more sense to discuss harm reduction after introducing the smoking cessation and safety issues, as this gives context to the harm reduction position, that they would not understand without introduction to these topics first. Yobol (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I should also note that accusations of "biased edits" do not further a discussion of how to appropriately improve the article, as it fosters a WP:BATTLEground mentality. I would suggest you lay off the accusations. Yobol (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Yobol: I'm sorry? I did a spot check of your claim that "Discussion as a purely tobacco harm reduction tool is discussed in fewer sources" was correct. Lets see: Saitta et al(2014), Hajek et al(2014), Palazzolo(2014), O'Connor(2012), Farsalinos&Polosa(2014) all have "harm reduction" in their keywords. Polosa et al(2013) and Cahn&Siegel(2011) directly are about harm-reduction and have it in the title. And that was just the reviews from the top part of the left column of our references.

Could you rephrase that in a way that is accurate please - since reality doesn't match your claim. Could you also explain why it should be the only thing discussed in the source? --Kim D. Petersen 00:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

While harm reduction may not be as much on the radar in the US. It is very much part of both the scientific and the political debate in Europe. And quite a lot of our sources are European, and they mostly do take a focus on harm reduction, as opposed to many of the US ones. --Kim D. Petersen 00:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The bias is removing clear claims of harm reduction from the section. Also making it a subsection. It deserves a section on its own under Health Effects, and not under Aerosol, which is second hand exposure. If a clam is about harm reduction, it should be in that section. Even if it has other parts, the harm reduction part should remain there are other parts placed in the section that fit, not be completely removed. AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Since safety should come first, I moved Cessation under it. AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I am going to start removing any duplication of any chemical or source soon if the Harm Reduction has referenced claims removed again.AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like Yobol is involved in an edit war AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like you are too. Yobol (talk) 01:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@AlbinoFerret: I now see your point about the last paragraph now in harm reduction, you are right, that belongs there. I misread the material there. Yobol (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I never reverted to a previous version of the page. I have removed duplicates from other areas. I am glad you see it is talking about harm reduction. There wasnt a section like it before so some claims of harm reduction are spread all over the page. Some of them I didnt remove from other sections because they deal with multiple things.AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

You restored the previous version and then deleted sourced text. If the text was in the wrong section it could of been moved to another section. QuackGuru (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

That section never existed in that location in the past so it cant be "restored". But the problem Yobol had was that the claims were duplicates, he later said they belonged in the Harm Reduction section. So since they belong in that section I removed the duplication from other areas. Up untill reciently there was no Harm reduction section and harm reduction claims were scattered accross other sections. The same has happened with Aerosol, and soon the duplicates from sections will have to be delt with. AlbinoFerret (talk) 19:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

No. Previous revert. Another revert. I added that text before. You restored the previous wording and then deleted the previous text that was changed. And now you made at least 3 reverts. QuackGuru (talk) 21:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

A revert is to a copy of the page as it existed in the past, please provide a link to a previous copy of the page with the sections exactly as the edits I did, including the order of the sections. AlbinoFerret (talk)

They were partial reverts. You deleted sourced text that came to a different conclusion. Are you going to restore the text without the assert violation I previously removed. QuackGuru (talk) 21:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I may have had 2 partial reverts at diffrent times over the day, and a revert of myself isnt counted as a revert. The assert violation text was from 2013 and said that some things were uncertian, but in 2014 we have reviews that have dealt with that topic. As such is old "concerns" that have proven to be nothing. That type of claim is supposed to be removed. AlbinoFerret (talk) 21:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Different sources make different conclusions. That is your opinion it is nothing. QuackGuru (talk) 21:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

They didnt make a conclusion, they said it was unclear. Thats not a conclusion, thats saying they were not sure. Well other studdies have later cleared it up in 2014. If they had concluded somethng it would have been left. Someone saying they are not sure about something isnt a claim. Statements like that should not be left when later evidence is presented. AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The statements were part of the conclusion. When later evidence is very clear then it will be updated. Now it is still unclear. QuackGuru (talk) 22:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The conslusion that they were not sure? Well when they are sure, post the claim. Until then other reviews and statements from MEDRS sources, which are sure have been made, making the previous unsure statement obsolete. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

They are sure it is unclear. QuackGuru (talk) 00:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

"A 2014 review found electronic systems appear to generally deliver less nicotine than smoking, raising the question of whether they can effectively substitute for tobacco smoking over a long-term period." No, the source was not a review. Who restored the OR? QuackGuru (talk) 01:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Stop throwing accusations around. Just because you disagree with something that does not make it OR.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Wording not consistent with source

Sourced wording was replaced with OR.

"A 2014 review concluded that there is no evidence of contamination of the aerosol with metals that would justify health concerns." The wording was changed and now the sentence is misleading and OR. QuackGuru (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Your link does not contain the edit of that line. Please provide that link, also please provide the text of the claim from the cited material. AlbinoFerret (talk) 19:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

You did not provide verification for the current text. There was no problem with the previous wording. QuackGuru (talk) 20:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Your link does not contain the edit of that line. Please provide the correct diff. I found the line in the citation. "Taken as the whole, it can be inferred that there is no evidence of contamination of the aerosol with metals that warrants a health concern." It looks like a good paraphrase and not OR. AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

You still could not verify the text because the source did not assert that. QuackGuru (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Read my previous responce above yours. It has the exact wording copied from the source, it most certianly said what is in the article. But its a paraphrase, we cant use the exact wording because of copyright issues as a few have explained to you a few times.AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The current wording is still misleading and the assertion is still OR. The wording was shortened to assert a claim out of context. QuackGuru (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Its a conclusion in the section of the source. Its not misleading, its a statement that says there is no evidence that that exposure to metals in aerosol warrents a health concern. This seems to be a common finding with all the contaminents. They are at so low a level that they dont cause concern. Please go into depth explaining why you think its not applied correctly. AlbinoFerret (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

You still can't provide verification for the current text taken out of context and you have not shown what was the problem with the previous wording. QuackGuru (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It isn't out of context, and what was wrong with the previous wording is that it missed out the tiny detail of the metal particles not warranting any health concern.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

When you can't verify the claim then it is OR and misleading text. QuackGuru (talk) 21:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

But he did verify it, with a quote from the source. And in fact it's the wording you insist on that's misleading, because it implies health concerns when the source itself says there aren't any.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 21:27, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

"Taken as the whole, it can be inferred that there is no evidence of contamination of the aerosol with metals that warrants a health concern."

When you provide the entire sentence from the source you will know it is misleading. QuackGuru (talk) 21:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

That quote starts with an upper case letter and ends with a period. Yep, looks like an entire sentence to me.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 21:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Full quote from the conclusions, demonstrating there's no WP:OR here, as claimed:

- Contamination by metals is shown to be at similarly trivial levels that pose no health risk, and the alarmist claims about such contamination are based on unrealistic assumptions about the molecular form of these elements.

-The existing literature tends to overestimate the exposures and exaggerate their implications. This is partially due to rhetoric, but also results from technical features. The most important is confusion of the concentration in aerosol, which on its own tells us little about risk to heath, with the relevant and much smaller total exposure to compounds in the aerosol averaged across all air inhaled in the course of a day. There is also clear bias in previous reports in favor of isolated instances of highest level of chemical detected across multiple studies, such that average exposure that can be calculated are higher than true value because they are “missing” all true zeros.

--Mihaister (talk) 21:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I really think more context is needed, especially the part about unrealistic assumptions.22:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

"Taken as the whole, it can be inferred that there is no evidence of contamination of the aerosol with metals that warrants a health concern." Inferred is not a conclusion. It was assumed. QuackGuru (talk) 22:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Since you have a problem with english, here is the entry from Websters Dictionary

infer

:to form (an opinion) from evidence : to reach (a conclusion) based on known facts

So it is a conclusion. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It was "inferred" which means "to hint; imply; suggest." QuackGuru (talk) 00:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

No, infer is the root word, the ending just adds the tense. I don't know what dictionary you are using, but Merriam-Webster is the gold standard, I copied its top definition into my last comment. You are going to the 3rd or 4th definition, one not normally used. But if we go to Dictonary.com for the definition we find the definition of inferred listed. #5 to draw a conclusion, as by reasoning. So its a conclusion based on reasoning as all reviews do to form conclusions from various other journal articles. AlbinoFerret (talk) 02:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The source says "inferred" not infer. QuackGuru (talk) 03:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Are we seriously having this discussion? You know what, Quack, rephrase the statement with whatever "distancing" language you want, as long as you immediately follow it with the following summary from the same source: "Clear bias in previous reviews cherry picks the highest measurements of the chemicals detected across multiple primary sources, thus overestimating the exposures and exaggerating their health implications." Mihaister (talk) 04:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

While I agree that the words following the quote should be included Mihaister, I LINKED to a direct definition that gives the exact meaning to inferred, not infer. But leave it to Quack to cherry pick something out of the post to complain about. The direct definition, without any guesswork for the exact word inferred is "to draw a conclusion, as by reasoning." is it is a conclusion. In case you cant find it, its #5. AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The sentence initially started with "Taken as the whole, it can be inferred"... The source was not that sure otherwise they would of asserted it rather than it say "can be inferred" It can be is not a definite conclusion. QuackGuru (talk) 04:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Is English your native language? AlbinoFerret (talk) 05:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The part "it can" be inferred is missing from the sentence. That is why it is misleading. QuackGuru (talk) 05:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

We have gone over paraphrasing and that your need for exact wording isnt possible because of copyright before. The sentence in the article is a good paraphrase of what the source says. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I never said I need exact wording. Don't put words in my mouth. It "can be inferred" does not mean it "is inferred". Thus it is misleading. QuackGuru (talk) 18:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

That wording means thats the conclusion they came to. If you look at the text that comes after it goes on to point out bias in other studies. so if you intend to change it, the bias statement will come in. AlbinoFerret (talk) 19:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You wrote "If you look at the text that comes after it goes on to point out bias in other studies. so if you intend to change it, the bias statement will come in." So if I tweak the text to make it closer to the source your are going to add text that is undue weight to counteract my improvement. That is not collaboration. That is a point violation and disruptive.

The source said it can be inferred not it *is* inferred. You can fix the OR. QuackGuru (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

For God's sake, Quack, I can't believe you're causing trouble about this. If you read "It can be seen..." what would you take from that? Or "It can be assumed..." It's exactly the same here. When they say "It can be inferred..." that means they inferred it. This is just desperate. Please stop it.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 23:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Quack, the only one being disruptive is you. If you insist on putting "inferred" in more context will have to come in describing the thought processes of the author of the source. Right now its a simple sentence that says what is in the original source, but paraphrased as we are supposed to do. If you want to twist things to your own point of view I will have to make it more clear by adding from the text. You will be creating a Streisand effect. By adding more context it will draw attention to it, I am pretty sure that defeats your desired result. AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The part "it can be" is missing. It makes no sense to say it "can be concluded" because the source said it can be inferred. It "can be inferred" is different from it "is concluded". Thus the text is misleading to claim it is concluded, especially when there is limited research. Without the context it is misleading. You can't WP:ASSERT it as fact when the source did not assert it as a fact. Do you understand the word *can* does not mean it *is* (concluded)? QuackGuru (talk) 03:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference Bur2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Violation of consensus

The source that was not a review was added against consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 20:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus for leaving it out; mostly it's just you.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I envite you to look at the section discussing its inclusion after the final printing, which has happened, It was said to be used with who said it. There is even a link included in the comments for the edit. AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

No clear consensus to include, so reverted, feel free to have an outside closer review that discussion if you'd like. Zad68 20:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Also no clear consensus to not include, and it seems more relevant than some other sources that have been forced in.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 20:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

If there's no clear consensus to do something that's been challenged, it isn't done. We as the participants involved in that discussion can't be the ones to close it. Again, feel free to ask at a neutral notice board for an outside experienced editor to review that discussion and determine if there was consensus to include. `Zad68 20:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

There isn't any clear consensus to include Offermann either, so why is that still in the article? There's also no consensus for the ordering of sections, the scare-bloated lede or the ridiculous prominence given to the Grana paper.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

LOL, don't you see, CheesyAppleFlake? A paper written by a mechanical engineer and published in a ventilation journal is "clearly" more relevant to health issues than a paper written by well-known public health experts and medical professionals published in the Journal Addiction. That's where you get with carefully-arbitrary application of WP policy and guidelines in support of a widely held, albeit prejudiced and unsubstantiated belief. Of course articles that present evidence exposing the misinterpretations forming the basis of this propaganda cannot be allowed, no matter how reliable, because they detract from The Truth. Mihaister (talk) 21:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)WP:NPOV demands that we give weight to notable critique, and a peer-reviewed such in a well respected journal within the topic of the articles scope - is very much notable critique. --Kim D. Petersen 21:27, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. It's just crazy to be allowing articles by a glorified plumber but excluding Addiction.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention that the critique is by authors of many of the papers cited in the report, so the authors have WP:WEIGHT as well. Things do not go away just because someone says "but..... WHO!". Extra thing to add, this isn't even an official report of the WHO that we are talking about. It is an informal report made to the attendents of the COP... and such would normally be classified under conference papers, which wouldn't get very much weight, but here we classify everything that the WHO touches as if it was position statements. --Kim D. Petersen 21:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

We've seen this before with the Euro TPD, when the authors of the science the EU used complained their work had been distorted for political reasons. The WHO is significant but not above being challenged, and it's worrying that it's become holy writ here. As for the COP, who knows what was actually discussed there? It was behind closed doors and apparently some delegates were physically prevented from speaking.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 21:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I wonder why User:Alexbrn hasn't defended hir revert here. That should have been the next step in dispute resolution? Or was that just a drive-by revert? --Kim D. Petersen 22:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC) It gets especially curious considering that User:Alexbrn's last objection to the inclusion of this material now has been met. It is published in the finalized version, no more typesetting problems. --Kim D. Petersen 22:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It might be time to take this to mediation. AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly right, Kim. These authors felt so strongly about the misuse, misrepresentation, and misinterpretation of their research that they wrote a letter to WHO to explain the evidence . Then they summarized their arguments and published this peer-reviewed secondary article addressing the same issues: the misinterpretations of their own work (and others'). These are not HVAC engineers, they are respected experts and research leaders in public health. Ann McNeill, the lead author, even served on WHO advisory committees regarding tobacco topics.

Since much of the current article is build on these misrepresentations of the evidence by Grana, many of which are addressed by the McNeill article, the only way to restore NPOV is to qualify all statements attributed to Grana with the corresponding critique and interpretation from McNeill et al. This is not a MEDRS issue, rather plain old common sense. Mihaister (talk) 04:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I filed a request for dispute resolution here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Violation_of_consensus Mihaister (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Aerosol

What is the opinion of the editors, is the provided evidence of what comes out of an ecigarette technically an aerosol? This isnt asking if the word should be used throught the page because we should write to the general reader in terms they understand, but for how claims are catagorized. AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I believe the term "aerosol" is both technically accurate and verifiable. However, I don't think it's the term used routinely in common language. Just like "fog" is also technically an "aerosol" and you don't hear the weather man forecast "morning aerosol" but rather morning fog, so too the more common term "vapor" should be used throughout the article. Mihaister (talk) 03:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

So when the article describes what is found in the vapor in a first hand exposure it is aerosol in a first hand exposure? I thought thats what it was, but had to make sure. We should also differentiate between first hand exposure and second hand exposure when the source article notes a difference because what is true for first hand exposure does not always hold true for second hand exposure. Also, unless the reference specifically mentions its second hand or uses terms and descriptions to describe second hand exposure, it should be taken as first hand exposure, correct? I also agree that no one talks like that. aerosol may be the technical term or scientific jargon, but we are writing to the General Reader who uses common words, not jargon, WP:MEDMOS tells us not to use jargon. I am just thinking things through for a way to make the article flow better. AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

We already discussed this before. The lede says mist. QuackGuru (talk) 04:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Outstanding issues

Failed verification and MEDRS violation

"A 2014 review found electronic systems appear to generally deliver less nicotine than smoking, raising the question of whether they can effectively substitute for tobacco smoking over a long-term period." This statement is sourced to the wrong reference. It was fixed but another editor initially restored an older version for no apparent reason. QuackGuru (talk) 19:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I changed it, as you could have. Changing to another source that has the same conclusions inst that big a deal. AlbinoFerret (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The other source failed verification and if it was not a big deal then why did you cut and paste the older version. Is it because you made other changes too. QuackGuru (talk) 19:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I dont remember why.AlbinoFerret (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You deleted a MEDRS compliant source for no logical reason. Do you disagree with the source. Do you remember now? You also restored a dated source from 2009. We have more recent sources. QuackGuru (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

A MEDRS compliant review was not a study

The edit summary claims it was an older study. On the contrary, the source is a recent review and is MEDRS compliant. Was this an accident or what? Pubmed says the source is from 2014 not 2013. QuackGuru (talk) 04:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The study was submitted and accepted in 2013, its a 2013 study. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Pubmed says it is a 2014 review (PMID 24575993). See: Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2014 Feb;11(2):236-42. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201311-391FR. Review. QuackGuru (talk) 07:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

It is not a 2013 study. QuackGuru (talk) 02:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

From the journal article itself.

• Accepted December 20, 2013
• Received November 11, 2013

It may have been finally published in an analog format in 2014, but the study was done, submitted, and accepted in 2013. AlbinoFerret (talk) 03:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Possible duplicate statement and do all three refs verify the claim

User:Yobol removed this text. At the time it was duplication. Do all there refs verify the claim and is the statement still duplication? QuackGuru (talk) 19:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

There is only one use of the text in the article, by the way thanks for pointing out that duplication is a problem. Safety or Aerosol will be getting much smaller soon. AlbinoFerret (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The text may not pass V and you have not pointed out what you think is duplication. Different sources make different claims. QuackGuru (talk) 19:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I am also wondering why we have to have a separate section for exposure to the vapor (Aerosol), because its the same vapor being discussed in Safety and all that is discussed in Aerosol are safety concerns. AlbinoFerret (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

It is a subsection with a definition and inhaled and exhaled emissions. Why was the subsection moved to the wrong place. QuackGuru (talk) 20:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

All of Safety is inhaled emissions. If its a subsection any duplicate claims should be combined with those the main section. We should not even have duplication of topics in subsections. AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The safety section is toxicology and the aerosol section is second-hand aerosol. QuackGuru (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Then all toxicology and all claims of first hand use, and all sources discussing the claims as first hand use should be removed from Aerosol. AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Inhaled emissions is different than exhaled emissions. All sources of first hand use should not be removed from the article. What text do you think could be merged into safety. QuackGuru (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I am going to have to go through each reference and make sure the context speaks of second hand emissions. AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You botched your last change of moving another section with restoring the old text and then deleting sourced text that was not redundant. Maybe you should discuss before moving the text. I get the impression you want to delete some text rather than moving the text. So far I didn't notice any problem with the placement. QuackGuru (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

One mistake is not "botched" Quack. The other one one was for reasons already discussed, and was not a mistake. Ill think about your suggestions. You dont notice any problems with your edits, but mistakes abound. 21:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Yobol, does this text passed V with all three refs? Is the text still redundant? QuackGuru (talk) 05:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this change. There was a problem with the text and now it is fixed. QuackGuru (talk) 05:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The broad claim is redundant and original research

The following text is redundant and is summarised in the next paragraph. "with one review concluding the effects of e-cigarette vapor to users and bystanders are minimal compared with conventional cigarettes." The broad claim is also original research. See Electronic cigarette#Aerosol. QuackGuru (talk) 19:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Yep, possibly OR, since the source actually says "trivial" not "minimal". I support use of the word "trivial" here to more accurately reflect the source. Mihaister (talk) 20:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you understand you added redundant text and when it is redundant it should be deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes when paraphrasing additional words have to be used because the exact words would lead to copyright violations. I agree with Mihaister, trivial is a lot better. AlbinoFerret (talk) 21:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The diff you linked is old. That version of the text is long gone, and currently I don't find this statement redundant. However, I agree a lot of redundancy has been created with statements from Grana. The article is in major need of cleanup with most of the 50+ refs to Grana compiled and summarized to remove duplicated and redundant claims. Mihaister (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the article needs cleanup. It reads like a lot of claims written on slips of paper and tossed in a bag, then pulled out and typed in that order. Its a disaster for the reader. AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

You don't find this statement redundant but the same source is used in the next paragraph with practically the same claim. QuackGuru (talk) 03:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with deleting the statements from Grana. We discussed this before. QuackGuru (talk) 03:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes. It was discussed before because Grana, a very controversial paper that's attracted a lot of criticism (including from the people whose work it is based on) is cited a ridiculous number of times in this article. We need to seriously look at why this outlier is given such an undue amount of weight.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 04:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The Aerosol section is a subsection of the Safety section

The Electronic cigarette#Aerosol section should be right after the Electronic cigarette#Safety section. Someone messed up the section orders. Was this an accident or intentional? Hmm. QuackGuru (talk) 03:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

This is starting to sound like an ownership issue, QG. Please rephrase you query in a more neutral manner. Mihaister (talk) 22:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

WHO report has not undergone independent peer review, and therefore should not be given more prominence than WP:MEDRSs

The bot sent me to the RFC, about which I have not yet formed an opinion. However, http://apps.who.int/gb/fctc/PDF/cop6/FCTC_COP6_10-en.pdf has not undergone independent peer review. Even though its organizational author is very prestigious, that is absolutely no substitute for the independent peer review which WP:MEDRS requires. Therefore I insist that the WHO report be given less prominence than the bona fide MEDRS sources of which there are several. EllenCT (talk) 05:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

@Doc James: why in did you delete the material I added? EllenCT (talk) 05:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Statements by medical organizations like the WHO absolutely meet MEDRS. Please read MEDRS more carefully. Yobol (talk) 05:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

So you wish to add "Frontiers in Public Health" with an Impact Factor of 0 (zero)? The WHO produces position statements of an internationally recognized organization and thus are WP:MEDRS. MEDRS does not require peer review. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The source was already in the article, in five different places. How is it even mathematically possible for a medline-indexed publication to have an impact factor of zero? Where in WP:MEDRS does it say that unreviewed reports qualify? EllenCT (talk) 05:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It would be helpful if people citing MEDRS read it all the way through. Yobol (talk) 05:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It says right at the top "position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies." Do you have a different impact factor for this journal? Just because it was there before does not mean we should give it more prominence.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Google Scholar has 20 citations for the article and PubMed has four. The author has been a full professor of physiology at Lincoln Memorial University for six years. The WHO report is an unsigned, unreviewed conference paper. Do you have any substantive reasons that anyone should consider the WHO report more authoritative? EllenCT (talk) 05:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Everything WHO publishes undergoes an extensive review.

This journal was started in Mar of 2013 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

What is your source for the claim that everything WHO publishes undergoes extensive review? They publish their conference proceedings without any more review than any other conference proceedings. Perhaps Professor Merrick, the editorial chair of the new journal, would be willing to explain to you that you should not rely on impact factors calculated once per year for new journals. Again, do you have any substantive reasons that anyone should consider the WHO report more authoritative? EllenCT (talk) 05:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It is an official report by the WHO. I am perplexed why we are even having this discussion, it clearly meets MEDRS, "Statements and information from reputable major medical and scientific bodies may be valuable encyclopedic sources. These bodies include the U.S. National Academies (including the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences), the British National Health Service, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization. The reliability of these sources range from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals..." Yobol (talk) 05:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It is a conference report from a WHO conference. What evidence is there to believe that it has ever been reviewed any more than any other conference proceedings? EllenCT (talk) 05:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

@Yobol: It is not "an official report by the WHO". Not by any means. Official reports have ISBN numbers and are printed, and are not disguising as conference material. It is an informal comissioned report made as material for a conference. --Kim D. Petersen 15:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

We have this review article published Nov 2014 from a journal with an impact factor of 2.9 that states "There is limited evidence for the effectiveness of e-cigarettes in smoking cessation; however, there may be a place in therapy to help modify smoking habits or reduce the number of cigarettes smoked" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not trying to delete the inconclusive review, I am merely trying to include the review which reached definitive conclusions. Deja vu from the fracking discussion a month ago! EllenCT (talk) 05:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for comments 2

Should the material deleted at be restored with more prominence than the WHO report and other WP:MEDRS sources which do not reach definitive conclusions about efficacy for smoking cessation? EllenCT (talk) 05:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The article being discussed Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose You want to use a paper from a journal with an impact factor of zero / 0 as being more authoritative than the World Health Organization? This journal is not a "reputable medical journal" and thus this source fails WP:MEDRS. It has only existed for little over a year. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS says nothing about journal impact factor, which is "zero" in this case because the journal is new. But it is already indexed in Medline -- the only measure of journal reputability which WP:MEDRS does establish -- just like all of the publisher's several other medical journals. The journal's editor has been a university and hospital-affiliated full professor for decades, with over 2000 publications. WP:MEDRS does say that peer-reviewed literature reviews must be well-cited to qualify, and the article in question already has about 20 citations. The review's author has been a full university professor of physiology for six years. No reasons to doubt the statement in question, that e-cigarettes have been more effective for smoking cessation than any other FDA-approved method, have been suggested or even implied. The fact that other MEDRS reviews do not reach definitive conclusions (probably because they surveyed fewer primary research reports) does not comprise a valid reason to censor the conclusive results of a bona fide, well-cited MEDRS review. EllenCT (talk) 06:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose No doubt this will break down completely along party lines like every previous discussion about this article, but seriously, a review in a zero impact journal by an author who has only published 7 Pubmed cited articles over the last 25 years, and none of these on the subjects of smoking cessation, nicotine dependence, or addiction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Formerly 98 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

What "party lines"? I see no previous specific discussion of the Palazzolo (2013) review at all. Is there any reason to doubt the review's conclusion that e-cigarettes have been at least as effective for smoking cessation than any other FDA-approved method? Please remember to sign your posts. EllenCT (talk) 06:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support - We should give prominence to reviews which reach definitive conclusions over those which do not, but we should include both categories. EllenCT (talk) 06:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support - While the WHO is a respected source it isn't gold-plated or beyond criticism. Their approach to THR and e-cigs has attracted plenty of criticism and this should be recognized. We should also take account of sources which actually find conclusions, rather than blindly insisting there isn't any evidence. There is.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 06:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The author's prior publications are on the subjects of arsenic and interleukin-1 effects on the hypothalamus, the effects of interleukin-1 or a synthetic organic chemical on the thyroid, plasma thyroxine levels in aging dogs exposed to cold, and the circadian rhythmn of cortisol levels in old dogs. Formerly 98 (talk) 06:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

So what? Professor Glantz is a mechanical engineer. That doesn't stop a paper written by his team being cited 40-plus times in the article.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 07:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The idea that specialists with a history of publication on a given topic are likely to be more accurate than generalist professors of physiology has no basis in fact. Specialists fall victim to their own prejudicial biases often enough that the accuracy of primary peer reviewed sources is often not much better than chance.

Maybe he stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night....:>) Formerly 98 (talk) 12:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

EllenCT (talk) 07:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. We should follow WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS in this article. We already had an WP:RFC on this, above on this very talk page. This seems like WP:DEADHORSE at this point, we really should stick to the most reliable sources on this medical article. The journal in question appears to be quite new and not yet established. — Cirt (talk) 06:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

MEDRS doesn't require that a journal be established in any way other than being indexed in medline. It requires that reviews be well-cited, as the review in question certainly is after less than a year. EllenCT (talk) 07:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose the 2014 WHO report is more recent and more authoritative and so is stronger under the letter and spirit of MEDRS. In addition and perhaps more importantly, the source does not support the proposed content The edit says "E-cigarettes are at least as effective as all other FDA-approved nicotine replacement therapy methods for smoking cessation" and the strongest statement in the palazzo source is "There is evidence supporting e-cigarettes as an aide for smoking cessation, at least as successful as currently available FDA-approved NRTs. More rigorous research is essential before any solid conclusions can be drawn about the dangers, or usefulness of e-cigarettes." which is a far weaker statement than the edit, and is actually in line with what the WHO says. Jytdog (talk) 12:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

@Jytdog: The 2014 WHO report is not an official report, it is basically Grey literature. It is an FTCT commissioned conference report for COP delegates, which hasn't been published - so claiming that it is "authoritative" runs contrary to WP:MEDASSESS. And please see WP:SHOUT. --Kim D. Petersen 13:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

please address the argument on substance, that the proposed text does not accurately reflect the source. I will address your evaluation per "gray literature" elsewhere" Jytdog (talk) 14:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support WP:MEDRS placed peer reviewed journal articles above Scientific Organizations. What is being said by the WHO is basically they are not sure. Why do statements of unsure trump research that has conclusions? AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

per my note above, the Palazzo source does not make a definitive statement. I quoted it, for pete's sake. please directly address that. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

If this article is not at the top, the Who statement should go to another spot, replaced by facts we know. AlbinoFerret (talk)

please don't shift ground; please address the topic. thank you. Jytdog (talk) 14:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

That isnt shifting ground, but the point of the question, should the uncertain WHO statement be there or a journal article with facts. AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

please address the point that the edit you have supported was not supported by the source. Jytdog (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

If you need a quarter to call someone who cares what you think about my opinions, bother someone else. AlbinoFerret (talk) 18:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose generally, I think it should be included but not given as much weight as the WHO, given that Frontiers in Public Health once published an article supporting AIDS denialism. Jinkinson talk to me 15:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

@Jinkinson:This actually is a very good argument for not prominently using the Palazzolo paper (the journal does seem to have serious troubles). But could you comment on the usage of the Grey literature WHO conference report as prominently as we do, where some editors, and current usage, consider it as being more authoritative as full-blown peer-reviewed reviews in medical journals? --Kim D. Petersen 15:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support with caveat The current WHO conference report must not be used as the equivalent of a fullblown WP:MEDRS secondary review article. Thus the unofficial/informal conference report must be cited less prominently than a real review. But i'm not convinced that the proposed statements that are derived from the Palazzolo source can be used this way, or even be supported this way, when considering the WP:WEIGHT of the literature. --Kim D. Petersen 15:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

  To quote WP:MEDRS (underlining mine): 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.

  Explanation: The report isn't a "formal scientific report" but instead a comissioned conference report, thus it cannot be the equal of a review. It may be peer-reviewed - but we have no knowledge thereof, it is not published etc. And to put the cherry on top... it has been criticized in the formal peer-reviewed system as being overly alarmist in its language. --Kim D. Petersen 15:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

  Considering Jinkinson's comment above, it definitively shouldn't be Palazzolo that we put weight upon, so my caveat stands :) --Kim D. Petersen 16:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per Jytdog: the source does not support the proposed content. The reference says only that e-cigarettes could be as effective as current methods but more research is needed, while the proposed content says that e-cigarettes are as effective. This reference and the WHO article are basically saying the same thing about e-cigarette's use as a smoking cessation tool: they might work in this capacity but more research is needed.

Regarding the relative quality of these two sources, neither is particularly good. The Palazzolo source is in a new journal whose overall article quality is unknown and the WHO source is just a guideline for discussion at the next conference; the statements in it haven't been evaluated or finalized. That these sources aren't perfect doesn't mean that they should necessarily be excluded, of course. The lack of published research in this field means that there are no perfect sources. Since use of e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid is a topic that should be addressed, we're going to have to make use of these imperfect sources, WP:MEDRS or no.

Regarding WP:MEDRS: while it should be followed when writing about health-related statements, this article as a whole isn't about health: it's about a device that can possibly be used for medical reasons (ie smoking cessation) and whose use may have health impacts. That this device has health-related aspects shouldn't mean that the whole article is a medical one. Moreover, impact factor isn't one of the criteria for determining a suitable source per the guideline so it shouldn't have a place in this discussion. Ca2james (talk) 16:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose> With regards to the Frontiers source, it is not MEDLINE indexed, which is a red flag per MEDRS. The additional evidence by Jinkinson that it has published dubious papers in the past (thus failing to have a reputation of fact checking per WP:V) and the lack of MEDLINE indexing suggests to me we should not be using this source, at all, and remove it as a source from the article, and remove text which currently cites it if we cannot find a MEDRS compliant source to supports those statements. With regards to the WHO source, it is of course a "formal scientific report" - it was a report commissioned by, and published by, the WHO to help WHO policymakers make decision regarding WHO positions for e-cigarettes. Above commentary that tries to label it "unofficial" or "informal" is remarkably unconvincing after reading the background and report (which appears to have been adopted by the WHO, though detials aren't clear about exactly what was adopted). Finally, the suggestion that we use a source just because it comes to a "definitive" conclusion is completely wrong-headed in my opinion. Some things in science have little evidence with which to make a definitive conclusion (which IMO is exactly the case with e-cigarettes); coming to a definitive conclusion when there is not enough evidence to make such a conclusion suggests the source is a poor one, not a better one. Yobol (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

  I can't say that i'm much in disagreement with what you are writing. Except for your comments on the WHO comissioned conference report. Formal reports are publicized for a broad audience and printed. Simple checks would tell you that this isn't the case for this report. Its audience is limited to the FTCT delegates, and it doesn't have an ISBN number, nor is it put out on the regular FTCT website as other than supporting material (Provisional agenda item 4.4.2) for the COP. And we're not even citing the final version, which is this one --Kim D. Petersen 16:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Drawing on years of experience reading the medical literature, I can say that this clearly meets MEDRS criteria. The target audience (in this case, for WHO policymakers) frankly, has no bearing on the validity of whether it is authoritative or reliable. I have never, ever seen the lack of ISBN being an indicator of unreliability. The criteria you are using to determine if this is reliable or not is completely foreign to me, as someone who, again, has read the medical literature for years. Yobol (talk) 22:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

@Yobol: i do not recall having ever said that it wasn't a reliable source. What i was commenting upon was the assessment of the source with regards to weight. I think that you are confusing things here. A source such as this is reliable, but as a source it doesn't rank as high as secondary review articles in peer-reviewed journals. When talking about whether or not a source is authoritative that is what people are talking about. --Kim D. Petersen 22:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Same comments apply as to whether it is authoritative or not. This is clearly a formal report of the current state of the scientific literature produced and published by one of the highest quality medical organizations in the world. I have never, ever seen the lack or presence of ISBN number as a role in whether something is authoritative. Again, we seem to be using very different criteria, ones that I have never used in my years of experience reading the medical literature. Yobol (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

No, it isn't. It's a briefing document commissioned from a single source and presented to a conference which took place under very questionable circumstances. It ignores most of the current state of the scientific literature.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It is a scientific report published and produced by the WHO for WHO policymakers. All attempts to downplay these simple facts I think reflect more on those who appear to dislike the conclusions of this report than they do on the report itself. Yobol (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Sigh! So a "provisional agenda item" translates into authoritative and on the same level as pure WP:MEDRS reviews? Impressive. What other kinds of Grey literature do you believe is authoritative? And yep.... It really does tell us something about those who want to "puff it up" as authoritative. --Kim D. Petersen 23:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It is an item on the agenda of the Conference of the Parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, as it is the official science report prepared for discussion there. Sigh, indeed. Yobol (talk) 02:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Nope, "formal" means something in this context. This is a formal agenda item, but not a formal report by the WHO for general consumation. The lack of an ISBN number, as well as the lack of the normal WHO preface material, not to mention that it says that it is a "Provisional agenda item" on the WHO website - tells you that it isn't a formal report. I'm surprised that you'd argue otherwise - especially considering your claim about years of experience here. --Kim D. Petersen 23:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The "it doesn't have an ISBN number" is such a red herring. If we're paying strict attention to what WP:MEDRS says, as previous arguments did, note that WP:MEDRS makes no comment regarding the presence of an ISBN number in determining source quality. Zad68 23:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

No, actually it is a quite valid point. WHO reports are published, and they have an ISBN number, but conference papers and briefing documents do not, because they aren't supposed to be presented to an outside population. As for your MEDRS comment: MEDRS does talk about how to assess sources, and how official documents from respected organizations can be as valuable as reviews, but they also note that not all documents from such are at that level. And this one isn't. --Kim D. Petersen 23:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Where exactly do you get the idea that any report published by the WHO without an ISBN number is not authoritative? What source says that? Yobol (talk) 02:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

But it's not a report. It was just a discussion item for a conference, and not even a discussion that led to a vote on policy.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 05:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

You're talking about this document, which has in big bold letters in the front page "Report by WHO", and which is described on this WHO page as the "Report on e-cigarettes to WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control"? You mean that's "not a report"? Really? Good Lord. Yobol (talk) 05:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

So basically, what the MED editors are arguing here is the WHO has the absolute and final word on any medical topic and that, as such, their opinion is beyond contestation, no matter the amount of evidence that can be presented, because.... well because they will deny the presentation of any evidence that goes against the word of WHO. Remember when people thought the world was flat because the Church said so and the word of the Church was beyond contestation?

The fact that you choose to ignore the evidence and hide behind a WHO document with unclear status does not make it go away. Many of the peer-reviewed secondary sources have conclusions that either directly contradict the WHO/Grana position or are far less specious or negative. Here are some, just in case you missed them: Saitta (2014), Hajek et al. (2014), Farsalinos and Polosa (2014), West et al. (2014), Arnold (2014), Burstyn (2013), Britton (2014), Caponnetto (2013), Polosa (2013), Palazzolo (2013), Etter (2011), Cahn (2011). Mihaister (talk) 08:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

How does this rant have any bearing on the previous discussion taking place? Yobol (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@Yobol: this is an example of a formal report from the WHO. It has a front-page, ISBN number, NLM classification, preface, etc. Now compare it to the Provisional agenda item that you are calling a formal report. Can you spot the differences? I find it extremely disappointing that MED editors will get hypnotized by the words WHO and then turn of their brains. --Kim D. Petersen 14:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

So you don't have a source that says reports without a ISBN number is not authoritative? This is a criteria you personally made up? Yobol (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't need it. But you on the other hand need to be able to demonstrate that this is a "formal scientific report", something that you are severely lacking in doing. You apparently see WHO+report and believe that this immediately translates into material as good as reviews. That is not what WP:MEDRS says. --Kim D. Petersen 17:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's hard to see how this objection has any merit. This from the WHO links directly to the Report, in English and 5 other languages, under the subheading Report on e-cigarettes to WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. The Report clearly passes the bar of being influential in forming the position of one of the world's most important and authoritative health organizations. Zad68 15:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS: "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"

Please note that this describes a range of documents from medical organizations.. with "formal scientific reports" being the most reliable, which have the potentiality of being as reliable as the best reviews. This particular "report" doesn't fall into the "formal scientific report" category, not even by your own assertions. It is a provisial document presented to policy makers, as a debate item to inform policy. It is not a scientific report, but a political document. And i frankly am baffled that anyone here would even contest that. --Kim D. Petersen 17:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I am still waiting to hear your answer on where you got the idea that the presence or lack of ISBN has any bearing whatsoever to the authoritativeness of a WHO document. I have asked this question several times now, and would appreciate a direct answer. It is an official scientific report presented for consideration to inform policymakers. Scientific documents that are taken into consideration by policymakers do not magically transform into "political documents" by merely having medical policymakers looking at them. Yobol (talk) 17:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Because formal scientific reports get published. And publishing means that there are bureaucratic things that follow... such as getting an ISBN. This is about as basic as anything. --Kim D. Petersen 17:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand that this is your opinion that this is true, but I am still waiting to see any objective source that says the presence of an ISBN number makes a WHO more authoritative than one that does not. Certainly something "as basic as anything" can easily be sourced and brought forward to confirm your opinion. Yobol (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Please try not to reverse the burden of evidence. If you need a source to be used as authoritative, then you need to demonstrate that it is such. As far as Misplaced Pages is concerned this is Grey literature from the WHO. And unless you can demonstrate that it is a "formal scientific report", then it is not and cannot even be considered per WP:MEDRS as being as valuable and equal to reviews. Sorry. --Kim D. Petersen 18:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

So, all you have to back up this assertion about ISBN and the authoritativeness of WHO reports is your own personal opinion? Unfortunately, as expected. Yobol (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

You may want to read back. I've presented you with an example of a real formal report by the WHO as comparison material. As for why published materials have ISBN's? Aren't you supposed to know that? Haven't you had any experience with printed literature? (see ISBN). --Kim D. Petersen 19:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Except you have provided no source to say that those WHO documents with ISBN numbers are more authoritative than those without. Absent said sources, we are going in circles, and I have better use of my time than to try to argue against your opinion that is not backed with any valid source. Yobol (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, Kim, what do you think "Provisional Agenda Item" means? Are you using that phrase to undermine the credibility of the report or suggest that the UN WHO's treatment of topic is in any way not substantial? If so let's close that door right now: See here, an item is "Provisional" if it's possible that not all the prerequisites would be in place; if all the prerequisites are in place, the item goes on the agenda, and that's what happened in this case. There is nothing "provisional" about the Report. Zad68 15:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm calling it that, because that is what the FTCT is classifying it as. Formal reports are given NLM classifications and are published (with ISBN) for consumation by everyone. I find it hard to understand that you'd classify it as being equal or above

"the best reviews published in medical journals" that we have. Forget the Palazzolo paper, which i agree is not particularly reliable (as i've written above several times), but this document does not have the "equal bang" as a review - sorry. --Kim D. Petersen 17:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Nobody has to win! Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but this RFC seems to give people a choice between giving the source "more prominence" or deleting it altogether. I don't like either of those things. A properly written Misplaced Pages article should be like a big sack where you can throw in any new source that is even moderately informative. Organizing it is fairly important; deciding "who is right", not at all. Contradictory statements, when both are sourced, are excellent. It isn't our job to decide who is right. We should be channeling Pliny here, not Celsus -- we're not trying to make an expedient field guide, but a comprehensive informational resource. So my main vote here is cool it - quit deleting respectable looking sources. If a source isn't MEDRS, just don't use it for a confident medical statement. (A statement that such-and-such org came out with this opinion, on the other hand, is OK) That goes for everyone, no matter what "side" they're on. (I have yet to understand this as a binary issue) Wnt (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Sadly some do think of it as a binary issue. AlbinoFerret (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Wnt. This RfC sets up an untenable dichotomy, and I don't find either option reasonable. As an encyclopedia, this article should present all the information found in reliable sources and we, as editors, should probably approach the task with a more detached attitude. Mihaister (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Jytdog, the source statement is far weaker than the proposed edit. Also, one study cannot over turn the WHO report, per WP:MEDRS. Darx9url (talk) 02:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Cloudjpk (talk) 19:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose zero impact journal. QuackGuru (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose for the following reasons:

1. Per Jytdog, the proposed claim in Misplaced Pages does not reflect the source cited.
2. Even if the claim did reflect the source, this journal does not meet WP:MEDRS and cannot make a medical claim. This kind of source is fine for nonmedical claims, but there is consensus on Misplaced Pages that non-medical claims cannot be made without sources of a certain quality, and this journal does not meet that standard. It fails the standard because it is new, has 0 impact factor (which is a measure of journal quality, with 0 being unassessed and unusuable), and because the journal itself makes no claim or pretense of medical authority to give advice. There is consensus that there is no room for diversity of opinions on Misplaced Pages about health claims from sources which do not even purport to be authoritative. This is a low standard, and this journal makes no pretense of attempting to meet it.
3. Even if the claim did reflect the source, other consensus is that the claim in this source conflicts with a claim made by the WHO. I am persuaded that the WHO source meets WP:MEDRS and is in conflict with the claim presented in this source. It is purported to report the consensus of many stakeholders and to be the position of an authoritative organization which gives health information. When a weaker statement from a less authoritative sources comes into conflict with a stronger statement from a more authoritative source, the weaker statement is treated as WP:FRINGE and is blocked from inclusion into Misplaced Pages.

Without additional support from other sources to establish that this claim is not WP:FRINGE there is not evidence that it merits inclusion into Misplaced Pages at all. The WHO source and its position can be presented. There is not much room for debate here as this issue is not complicated and can be decided by WP:MEDRS precedent, with the weak paper failing MEDRS and WHO passing it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose wait until there is more than one source on that subject Avono♂ (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Original Research, use of present tense

In the article I added a statement to the begining of Harm Reduction. The source of the line is.

• "The issue of harm reduction has long been controversial in the public health practice of tobacco control. "

Has is past tense, meaning it is discussing things in the past. We have had a few editors change the tense of the claim to say it "is". This is WP:OR. Unless they have a source that states it is in the present, they should leave it be. AlbinoFerret (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The normal English meaning of "has long been" means "was in the past and continues through to this day." "Is" is correct. If the authors wanted to indicate that it was no longer the case, they would have used "had been," the past perfect. Zad68 16:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, AlbinoFerret incorrectly categorized the tense as "past tense", when it is actually the present perfect continuous tense, which can indicate continuation to the present. I have corrected their error and used the tense of the source, which indicates both a past controversy and continuation to the present. Yobol (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

No Zad, what your describing is a perfect tense, and its possible its perfect tense, but unlikely as the prefect tense isnt used in english that much. But "is" is present tense. AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Verification failed

Verification failed for this edit.

First change was this:

but a significant number will use both tobacco cigarettes and electronic cigarettes. The health benefits are significantly less with such "dual use"

The "report" states: "However, for a sizeable number of smokers ENDS use will result in the reduction of cigarette use rather than in quitting." - sizable != significant.

Second change:

A 2014 WHO report concluded that the aerosol emissions are likely to increase the risk of disease to nearby bystanders, especially from those e-cigarettes which produce toxicant levels close to those emitted by certain cigarettes.

There is no such "conclusion" in the report. In fact it states:

"It is unknown if the increased exposure to toxicants and particles in exhaled aerosol will lead to an increased risk of disease and death among bystanders as does the exposure to tobacco smoke."

And unknown doesn't translate into "likely".

Not to mention that the above editor in his edit states that this is the "WHO position", which is incompatible with the source material, which isn't a position statement. --Kim D. Petersen 18:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Conversely

The health benefits are significantly less with such "dual use".

The report says:

" This will lead to dual use of ENDS and cigarettes. Given the likely greater importance of duration of smoking (number of years smoking) over intensity (number of cigarettes smoked per day) in generating negative health consequences, dual use will have much smaller beneficial effects on overall survival compared with quitting smoking completely.

That means that this isn't verifiable either. Significant is the editors own apparent invention. --Kim D. Petersen 18:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I have now directly quoted the WHO report to assuage any concerns of failed verification. I note that that Point 28 subbpoint (d) stated, " In fact, exhaled aerosol is likely to increase above background levels the risk of disease to by standers, especially in the case of some ENDS that produce toxicant levels in the range of that produced by some cigarettes" which is where point #2 was added. As I think it will be fruitless to try to add any such material to this article in the current toxic and adversarial environment, I left out any mention of it. Yobol (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@A1candidate:, could you please explain why you reverted this version, which appears to be a clearly more accurate summary of the source? Yobol (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

While I prefer paraphrasing to quotes, in this case quoting the report directly seems perfectly suitable in this situation, and I think the edit should be restored. Zad68 19:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

While I prefer paraphrasing as well, the numerous objections to the paraphrasing leads to the only real solution being direct quotation. Yobol (talk) 19:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I mean by "in this case"... Zad68 19:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is not a problem with paraphrasing - it is a problem with the paraphrasing by increasing severity of statements. "sizable" becomes "significant", "unknown" becomes "likely", "smaller beneficial" becomes "significantly less" - all of which are for some strange reason in the same directionality... and all of which encompass a single POV. And as for the statement that point 28 d that appears to state something contradictory to an earlier sentence in the same report, that should make you stop up and not use it, instead of picking the one that you like. --Kim D. Petersen 19:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the paraphrases I used were well justified, but clearly you do not, so I have used direct quotes as a compromise. As noted above, I will not be attempting to restore that aerosol material (I had only seen the part in 28 (d), not the earlier portion). Is there any objection to this version, or can we implement it now? Yobol (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The quote passed V and it is a good compromise. QuackGuru (talk) 19:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

It is quoted out of context and the excessive use of quotation marks makes it difficult to read. -A1candidate (talk) 20:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

How is it "out of context"? Do you support the previous paraphrasing if you do not support the quotations? Yobol (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

It was not quoted out of context. A1candidate, if you thought it was quoted out of context then you could of fixed it. What do you think is quoted in context then? No more excuses, please. QuackGuru (talk) 07:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there are still objections. For one that you are using the "report" as if a position statement instead of the Grey literature that it is, and secondly that you are using it to contrast real bonefida reviews in the medical literature, this is especially troublesome considering that the report has been criticized in the peer-reviewed literature as following:

"CONCLUSION The language of the report, the selective use and misrepresentation of evidence is problematic in a major policy-relevant document. Policymakers and the public require scientists to present evidence objectively, and when they offer unsubstantiated opinions, scientists should make it clear that this is what they are doing."

This report should be used sparingly, and not be used for cherry-picking information that is already covered in the reviews that we have. --Kim D. Petersen 20:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

It is a "report", it says so on the WHO page and on the front page of the report. You are also reverting to a version that already uses the report, just a poorer summary of it. As the proposed version is a better summary of the source, what objections to this particular diff do you have, besides WP:IDONTLIKETHESOURCE? Yobol (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Strangely it doesn't seem as if there is a general consensus that this report is as useful as you want it to be. How about acknowledging that lack of consensus and keeping the usage within bounds? --Kim D. Petersen 20:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I also agree there is no consensus to use that report. 02:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to start a discussion about how much to use the WHO source, but that is not the point of this thread, which is a discussion of "Failed verification" and which version is a more accurate summary of the source. I feel this version is a more accurate summary, do you not agree? Yobol (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is a natural outlier of the earlier failed verification. The WHO source is discussed in the above thread, in WP:DR and on the RS(medical) board, as well as being part of the reason that there is a POV tag on the article.... so it is a valid question to ask: Whether or not we should expand the usage of this source, considering that. v--Kim D. Petersen 20:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, I ask, is not my proposed version a more accurate summary of the source? Yobol (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

False dichotomy considering the things mentioned above. Find another source, and if you cannot, then that is further demonstration of the problem. --Kim D. Petersen 20:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

So you are refusing to answer which version is the more accurate summary? Or do you not have an opinion on the matter? Yobol (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I think i've made clear several times that the source is overused, and has dodgy pedigree. And that gives a problem with WP:WEIGHT. --Kim D. Petersen 21:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Kim. AlbinoFerret (talk) 02:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

You have not shown the issue with using quotes. The original objection was the text failed verification. The WHO source is not of low pedigree. QuackGuru (talk) 07:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The WHO is to health what the UN is to government, useless. 10:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

a pox on all your houses

I reverted back to what appeared to me, to be the last stable version before today's nonsense. Please resolve issues here, not in the article. If you guys keep this up, this article is going to end up with really stupid editing restrictions on it (like 0RR - no changes allowable unless they are vetted here first). I understand that (but not why) there is a lot of passion around this topic but please don't edit war. That goes for everybody who made an edit today. If this went to the edit warring board the lot of you would get blocked. Jytdog (talk) 21:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

At this point i have to say that a 0RR could only be an improvement unfortunately. That would require consensus or at the very least a semblence of such. As for the edit-warring or what you call "today's nonsense", that could've been entirely avoided if there had been more usage of the talk-page, and waiting for further input. --Kim D. Petersen 22:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

you are part of "all" Jytdog (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, so are you. --Kim D. Petersen 22:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

It looks like you went to the talk page first Kim. The time stamps have the talk page section made about 5 minutes after your first edit today. AlbinoFerret (talk) 02:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Yep, the 5 minutes was the time it took me to formulate what i should write. 'm not fast, which is why i often get edit-conflicts :) --Kim D. Petersen 02:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Its better to think things through than to use boilerplate excuses........ AlbinoFerret (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

A lot of OR and duplication was restored. Please be especially careful not to restore OR. The WHO source is one of the most reliable sources. QuackGuru (talk) 10:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Why is it one of the most reliable sources? It's highly controversial and several of the scientists whose work it reviews have accused the WHO of misrepresenting them.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 16:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Considering all of the discussions above, it seems disingenious to make such a claim. But i take this from it: QG considers it one of the most reliable sources - but other editors disagree with him. That would be an accurate description of reality. --Kim D. Petersen 16:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

globalize tag

A1candidate, per your tagging for "globalize" and somewhat sarcastic edit note, you are aware that the article emphasizes what the world health organization says about e-cigarettes, yes? are you aware of medical authorities in non-English speaking countries that have made statements, and more importantly, sources in english on them? Please bring them. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 00:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Are the FDA, CDC, American Industrial Hygiene Association etc. World health organizations? Impressive. --Kim D. Petersen 01:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The WHO isnt the word of God. AlbinoFerret (talk) 02:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Section titled "Position of medical organizations" does not mention WHO, only US/UK authorities. And the section under "Safety" only deals with US/UK. -A1candidate (talk) 06:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Unless you provide sources the tags are ridiculous. QuackGuru (talk) 06:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

It's about providing balance, not sources. -A1candidate (talk) 06:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Without sources you have not demonstrated there is any issue. QuackGuru (talk) 06:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

And we all now that you Qack, are the master of ridiculous. AlbinoFerret (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

True, English-language sources are not always so easy to come by, but there is plenty of regulatory/public health activity beyond the U.S. and UK. France and India very recently, to give two major examples. The tag seems quite justified and isn't a criticism of what is in the article, just an observation on what else should be. Barnabypage (talk) 11:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

So add the positions. Most organizations actually do not have clear positions and just go by that of WHO. We cannot add what does not exist. So yes inappropriate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

It's about maintaining a balance between US/UK authorities and non-anglophone institutions (including WHO). Is this really that hard to understand? -A1candidate (talk) 16:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Who is used. The US government is the largest research organization in the world. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

WHO is not used in "Position of medical organizations" and only mentioned once under "Safety". -A1candidate (talk) 16:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Non-English sources: There seems to be a misunderstanding. Sources do not have to be in English per wp:NONENG.TMCk (talk) 16:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Comprehensively summarizing Polosa et al (2013)

Currently, the only summary of Polosa et al (2013), a peer reviewed open access literature review with about 22 citations from volume 10 of the impact factor 1.6 Harm Reduction Journal by several Italian and American medical school full professor authors, is as follows: "A 2013 randomized controlled trial found no difference in smoking cessation rates between e-cigarettes with nicotine, e-cigarettes without nicotine and traditional NRT patches."

However, the abstract of that WP:MEDRS source states that, "it is likely that smokers who switch to E-cigs will achieve large health gains." And the review concludes that, "smokers are finding these products helpful.... Most importantly, even if this product proves to be effective for only 25% of the smoking population, it could save millions of lives world-wide over the next ten years."

Which of those excerpts are appropriate to include in the article? I propose including the excerpts shown as direct quotations in the introduction per the instructions to summarize major controversies in WP:LEAD, as well as in the body's "Smoking cessation" section. EllenCT (talk) 00:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

We are not a collection of quotes from different sources. Thus oppose the idea as presented. We already more or less say this "evidence suggests e-cigarettes may be safer than smoking tobacco products" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Fine; I propose including "Smokers switching to electronic cigarettes find them helpful and will likely achieve large health gains. Even if they are effective for only a quarter of smokers, they could save millions of lives over the next decade." EllenCT (talk) 16:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

There's no doubt vaping is safer than smoking. The current debate is over where, in the region 95-100% safer, it lies. So the article isn't representing the current literature very well.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 16:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

That is my understanding as well. Has the faction in favor of showering the readership with wishy-washy uncertainty presented any evidence to the contrary at all? EllenCT (talk) 16:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

No, they're just constantly hollering that the WHO and aircon installers are The Truth and can't be challenged. This article is an unreadable mess.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes as soon as you anyone convinces WHO, NICE or this comes out in a major journal with the sort of certainty express above we will include it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Who are you replying to Doc James? Could you please indent so that i can tell? --Kim D. Petersen 16:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The implication that http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/ isn't a "major journal" is absurd because the median medical journal impact factor is much less than 1.6 per . Not a shred of evidence has been presented that the WHO conference proceedings were ever independently reviewed before publication. The idea that we must convince WHO or NICE of the plain language of MEDRS sources is not based in policy or guidelines. EllenCT (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Doc James. The defining problem with e-cigarettes is that there have been so little study about their effects. To suggest we can now quantify their effects ("millions of lives") is absurd. This is a problem of WP:WEIGHT; one source says we can quantify, every other source doesn't even try to quantify because they know better, but the one source that makes the absurd statement is valued; this is madness. I paraphrase from an earlier comment - the suggestion that we more highly value a source just because it comes to a "definitive" conclusion is completely wrong-headed in my opinion. Some things in science have little evidence with which to make a definitive conclusion (which IMO is exactly the case with e-cigarettes); coming to a definitive conclusion when there is not enough evidence to make such a conclusion suggests the source is a poor one, not a better one. While I agree the article is an "unreadable mess" this is largely due to people shoehorning in definitive statements from their favorite source, rather than documenting with appropriate weight what the sources say, i.e. "There is disagreement in the medical literature as to effect x, with some reviews stating y, and some stating z." Instead we have competing definitive statements each in text attributed to a specific source. Madness. Yobol (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

But that's absolutely not true. There have been hundreds of studies of their effects, mostly coming to the conclusion that there's little or nothing to worry about. The problem is they're all being rejected in favor of Grana and the WHO, who represent a minority and extreme position.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Madness is giving greater prominence to reviews which do not reach definitive conclusions because of their limited scope, when wider reviews which do reach clear prescriptive conclusions are are abundant and unquestionably as authoratative. EllenCT (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

No, madness is taking one line out of one review and trying to give WP:UNDUE weight to it. If there is disagreement in the medical literature and positions, we give them, but only with due prominence. If only one source out of 40 says we can quantify something, we don't give undue weight to that one source. Yobol (talk) 18:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

If reviews A and B say "there is insufficient evidence that widgets are blue" and review C, of a substantially larger number of sources, says "widgets are blue", giving greater prominence to the conclusive evidence is absolutely not undue weight, as long as the positions of all three reviews are included in the article. EllenCT (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Where is the ref for 100s of studies? This ref says "efficacy of these products as a cessation aid is sparse, confined to 2 randomized controlled trials and 1 large cross-sectional study, anecdotal reports, and Internet-based surveys" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Comprehensively summarizing Hajek et al (2014)

Currently, the article includes twelve summary citations of Hajek et al (2014) (Redacted), a peer reviewed literature review with 7 citations from volume 109 of the impact factor 4.9 journal Addiction by Swiss and American medical school full professors along with authors from the UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies and the Center for the Study of Tobacco Products at Virginia Commonwealth University's Department of Psychology.

The abstract of that WP:MEDRS source states that, "Long-term health effects of use are likely to be much less, if at all, harmful to users or bystanders ." However, that statement is not included or summarized in the article. The review concludes that, "health-care professionals should support smokers unable or unwilling to stop tobacco use who wish to switch to EC to reduce harm from smoking should emphasize the importance of stopping using cigarettes and nicotine altogether."

Therefore I propose that, "Electronic cigarettes are likely to be much less harmful to smokers than cigarettes," be included in the introduction and the "Harm reduction" section of the article, and that the "Harm reduction" section should also include the statement that, "Health care professionals should support smokers wishing to switch to electronic cigarettes and emphasise the importance of stopping using cigarettes and nicotine." EllenCT (talk) 18:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem with this approach is we should be comprehensively summarizing ALL the sources, not just taking them piecemeal. Piecemeal additions from sources is what caused the mess in the article in the first place, and I oppose any further recommendations to go down this route. Yobol (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I invite other editors to join me in giving the appropriate amount of credibility to the opinions of anyone who announces that they have made up their mind in advance and are no longer open to consideration of evidence with which they disagree. EllenCT (talk) 18:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

That was not a helpful response Ellen. The fact that someone expresses disagreement with your approach is not tantamount to announcing that "they have made up their mind in advance and are no longer open to consideration of evidence with which they disagree". A more accurate description would be they have announced that "they strongly disagree with my proposal". These are not the same thing, and equating them is part of what makes editing this article so difficult. Formerly 98 (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

How would you characterize "I oppose any further recommendations to go down this route"? EllenCT (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

That your approach to editing and building this article will make this article more unreadable and develop worsening WP:WEIGHT issues. Nothing I wrote has even the remotest thing to do with "have made up their mind in advance and are no longer open to consideration of evidence with which they disagree". Yobol (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Your approach to opposing inclusion of only those summaries of the portions of MEDRSs already in the article with which you do not agree violates the WP:V and WP:NPOV pillar policies. You clearly wrote what I quoted above, and it clearly implies you are not open to any further suggestions to include summaries of such excerpts. What other possible interpretation is there? EllenCT (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

"Your approach to opposing inclusion of only those summaries of the portions of MEDRSs already in the article with which you do not agree" - Um, excuse me? I did not say that. This is the second time you have misrepresented what I have wrote, in this one thread. I am taking my leave now, as life's too short to deal with someone who appears to either lack the competence to understand what I am writing or does understand and misrepresents it anyways. Yobol (talk) 05:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

If anyone else has a theory about what else you possibly could have meant by "piecemeal additions" than excluding just the parts of reviews, which are already partly summarized in the article, that you don't agree with, I'd love to hear it. But you would rather bow out than answer my question? And then make a personal attack accusing me of misrepresenting what you wrote without explaining what you claim to have meant? Good riddance. EllenCT (talk) 17:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

IMO, the main problem with the article is not the "comprehensively summarizing ALL the sources" as suggested above but the failure to accurately portray the large controversy that surrounds the usage stats and medical topics (health effects, safety, addiction, harm reduction, vapor composition, and risk). Most of the sources mention this heated debate explicitly and the others portray the controversy by presenting conflicting evidence from both sides. I think the "health" section should start with a prominent subsection accurately portraying the topic as controversial and based on thin evidence (from both sides). It should then summarize the position of each side, before delving into the details of who said what when. Mihaister (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

In the MEDRS sources I've looked at, I have not yet seen any detailed description of a controversy greater than usual for any new health-related development. What source do you think best describes the controversy? I wasn't even aware that there was any controversy before the RFC bot pointed me here. EllenCT (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Not a source that is useful here, but it provides some insights into what is happening: Professor Peter Hajek - Experts on Camera --Kim D. Petersen 20:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

THAT VIDEO IS EXTRAORDINARILY INFORMATIVE AND I AM SHOUTING IN RED HERE IN HOPES IT WILL ENCOURAGE ALL EDITORS TO LOOK AT IT. Thank you! EllenCT (talk) 23:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Take your pick, they all say something about the debate or controversy in this arena. For example, the Hajek 2014 review (since it's the topic of this subsection): "The reaction by the public health community to this unfolding phenomenon has ranged from enthusiastic support to vigorous opposition." Or the Polosa et al. 2013 review from above: "The e-Cigarette is a very hot topic that has generated considerable global debate."

There are also many other articles that don't necessarily cover medical topics, but rather focus on the social or economic aspects of this, some which are entirely dedicated to portraying the controversy: e.g. Stimson et al. 2014, Gilmore and Hartwell 2014, Glyn 2014, Cavico et al., etc. A few minutes on Google Scholar and you can find many more.

In addition to creating the "Controversy" section mentioned above, I also propose we add the following templates to this talk page: {{Controversial}} {{Calm}} {{Pbneutral}}. Mihaister (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

POV tag

Since QuackGuru seems to be confused about why this tag has been placed on the article, despite several RfC's ongoing (albeit imho on wrong questions), and since the older discussion has been archived, let me expand my rationale for putting the tag there. First let me note that i believe that this is a systemic problem in the article, which is why i didn't place a template:POV-section tag or a template:POV-lead tag - but instead went for the Template:POV one.

• We have an imbalance of how views present in WP:MEDRS secondary sources are presented => WP:BALANCE
• We put too much emphasis on the views of a single review (or 3 researchers if you want (Grana review)) => WP:WEIGHT
• A lot of cherry-picking for quotes within papers is taking place - both "sides" have this problem. Instead of looking at the conclusions/summaries of the papers => WP:BALASPS
• The structure of the article is put up so that it emphasizes medical aspects instead of going for a layout that (for instance) would match the ones that review articles use (they always start with a description of what it is, and how it came about before describing what may/may not be the problem with it) => WP:STRUCTURE

and there are more .. but these are the obvious ones.

Finally: The tag is not there to be "tag of shame" (as QG puts it), but instead as the tag is supposed to be a "message used to attract other editors to assess and fix neutrality problems" exactly as described on WP:NPOV#Templates. And i would entice editors not to remove the tag, unless the conditions set forth on Template:POV#When_to_remove are met. --Kim D. Petersen 21:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Any many of us disagree with you per the RfC. The majority of the high quality literatures state that there is simply not a lot of evidence. The same amount of evidence there is shows that they are probably safer than regular cigarettes. And this is what the article says. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

It is a natural thing that people disagree about POV issues - otherwise POV issues would probably never surface, but as the RfC you point to also shows: This isn't a minority view! As for your "the majority of high quality literature" thing, well that is both correct and incorrect. They all agree that more research is needed, and that there are uncertainties, but the "majority of high quality literature" also agree that e-cigarettes are significantly less of a health-risk than cigarettes (typically cited as 2-3 orders of magnitude), and that there is very little risk in second hand exposure. Now there are outliers within the literature, one of these being the Grana review - which we put rather a lot of undue weight upon. And please do not argue with the "This journal is better than that journal", because what is important is researchers and the views of researchers. The Grana review is the professional view of 3 researchers - it is not the view of the journal. --Kim D. Petersen 21:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

It is published by an exceedingly well respected journal. And yes that matters. It is interesting that some are attempting to attack the best available sources and are putting forwards sources with impact factors or zero instead.

So yes I guess their is a POV and it is that of the best available literature / sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

An exceedingly well respected but not very relevant journal. Meanwhile a review published in Addiction is being rejected by your lapdog because he doesn't like its conclusions.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if it is a deliberate misunderstanding, but this is not about disliking some sources, but a WP:WEIGHT one. Journals are important in finding out whether the articles can be trusted, but the venue of publication once we've decided that it is trustworthy, is not an argument for WP:WEIGHT. I have troubles understanding that you'd even contemplate to say that impact factor of the journal should be the deciding factor of how often a particular paper should be cited. --Kim D. Petersen 22:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

We do and should give greater weight to better sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

That was really a "talk around" rather than an answer. I can agree with what you say (and do), while still have the same trouble understanding your argument. --Kim D. Petersen 22:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Kim. I agree completely with the points you raised. Also, I'd like to add that the failure to accurately portray the fundamental controversy that surrounds the usage stats and medical topics adds to the NPOV problem, as detailed above , . Mihaister (talk) 23:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I've raised a question on this at WT:MEDRS#Impact_factor_of_journals_as_the_determining_factor_in_weight --Kim D. Petersen 22:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I hope i presented the problem/conundrum as neutral as possible, and that people here don't just pile on, and continue a content dispute at that board. :) --Kim D. Petersen 22:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Unless there is a serious problem with the lede the tag should not stay at the top of the article. QuackGuru (talk) 00:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Could you please follow the link to WP:NPOV#Templates and read that, as well read what i wrote about tags? This is not an Template:NPOV-section problem. --Kim D. Petersen 00:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I assume you think there are no issues with the lede. The tag and the Rfc has already attracted other editors. The requirements for the tag were fulfilled. QuackGuru (talk) 00:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that the lead doesn't follow WP:LEAD by being a summary of the body of the article? And i would refer you to the 3 bulleted items on Template:POV for when to remove the tag. --Kim D. Petersen 00:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The lede is a bit short but it does follow lede. There has been problems with editors adding or restoring original research though. QuackGuru (talk) 00:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes I have had to remove a lot of negative OR lately. AlbinoFerret (talk) 03:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to add image

I propose we include this image. Can I restore the proposal? Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 00:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

No, absolutely not. That photograph is of outdated rubbish. Also, somewhere as prominent as the caption of a photo can we please not use the ridiculous "mist"?--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 05:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Quack has a problem with the word "vapor" a view only supported by him and Cloujpk in the talk pages. A very minority view. Vapor is the most common term used. He relies on two journal articles, though we are not supposed to be writing like a journal. Mist was suggested as a compromise in the lede, its use elsewhere was not agreed to. This photo is outdated, like most of the article, relying on first generation devices. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The article shouldn't be based on what Quack wants. He's just one editor with a very bad reputation for causing problems, and even if he has a powerful protector we shouldn't let him throw his weight about.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I would say that it is a poor representation of current vaping equipment, cig-a-likes are (at least in Europe) very rarely used, mainly because of their poor functionality. I'm not against a picture there (or even this one), should just be a better more up-to-date one. --Kim D. Petersen 00:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Do current e-cigarettes puff like that? QuackGuru (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I am fine with a photo of the stuff that comes out of an e-cig Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

As long as we use only one photo. If a better photo is available in the future we can replace this one. QuackGuru (talk) 01:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you Kim that the picture is old and outdated. Cigalikes are a poor product and really don't provide a good representation of todays devices. They are first generation devices. AlbinoFerret (talk) 03:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

It's good to have a picture of a cigalike, a picture of a tank system, etc. The lack of homogeneity in the market is one of its important features. On the non-cigalike devices, some sense of scale in the picture would be useful. Barnabypage (talk) 10:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The photos of the devices in general are useful, but the one of vapor? Not so much. AlbinoFerret (talk) 11:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely this photo is useful. The way in which the device mimics cigarette smoke is clearly a distinctive feature, and seeing the mist helps to underscore why people wonder about the health effects of the second-hand "smoke". Also, the stuff is not vapor - look up vapor, this isn't it. Vapor would be clear. It worries me that there are people saying a) that we should inaccurately call the substance "vapor", and b) wanting to hide a photo that illustrates it isn't vapor. It gives the appearance of some kind of spin. That said, I have no objection to using better/more updated photos, though frankly, I see little visible difference from what is being advertised now, except maybe color? Wnt (talk) 14:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Vapor is not always clear. As for your "worries" about people wanting to call it vapor that's what EVERYBODY calls it except, thanks to Quack's POV-pushing, Misplaced Pages. And if you don't see a difference between the crappy cigalike in that photo and what people are actually using you need to see your optometrist urgently.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 16:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, if there's any POV here it's only chemistry class - classes taken long before e-cigarettes were on the market. Vapor is a specific chemical term. It is accurate for a THC vaporizer for marijuana (if combustion is truly avoided) when a volatile material is simply heated, but not for a suspension of droplets cunningly created from a liquid solution. While we should not exclude mention of the popular term, when it comes to routine statements in encyclopedic voice we should be accurate. Wnt (talk) 17:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

If you use a PG-only liquid the vapor is next to invisible. There's a British liquid, Clearstream I think, where it is invisible. Vegetable glycerin is added specifically to create a visible plume because users like it. They are producing vapor. Most academic papers say "vapor". Every manufacturer, user and media report says "vapor". Objecting to the use of "vapor" is crazy. As for POV, this article is an unreadable mess of hypothetical health effects that might appear sometime when it's supposed to be about the devices themselves. It is not a medical device and the article just shouldn't be in this state.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Wnt, I dont think anyone is debating the textbook definition of "vapor" or what its called in some journals. But there are a lot of Misplaced Pages guidelines, WP:MEDMOS to name one, that tell us to write to the General Reader who doesnt use the textbook or journal definition of most things. In fact those Misplaced Pages pages tell us not to use jargon except when there is no other alternative. An example "An electric gasoline hybrid vehicle" may describe a Prius but most people call it a "car". A lot of repair manuals from Copier manufacturers call what they make "Network laser printer with attached scanning option" but no one says that. Since this article is about a consumer product, we should use consumer terms when describing it and things about it. Mist is confusing, and aerosol to the general reader is a can of hair or bug spray. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I finally added something I suggested way above, about the blu acquisition by Lorillard and the Steven Dorff ad campaign. I think that this text justifies a Fair Use screenshot of Dorff exhaling - I snapshotted a frame right after he says "we're all adults here". That said, I think even if that is acceptable to people here, the old shot is still useful to have also because there's no artifice in it, and it is a different brand. Wnt (talk) 15:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Its probably the least offensive ad if all your using is a screen shot of it and not the video. Quack added a tag asking if the link to the video was a reliable source. Since its on Youtube, and Blu used its corporate account to post the video the source should be reliable for showing the video exists. It doesnt seem the cigalike companies can advertise without someone finding a fault with the advertisement. Im not sure they should do video advertisements. In the hearing of the of the commerce committee on e-cigarette advertising a Blu representative said they make and advertise things for adults. Naming one of the flavors as whiskey, pointing it out as an adult flavor. It was then pointed out to him that even that flavor would attract youth. AlbinoFerret 04:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

New section proposal - Controversy on health topics

Many of the MEDRS sources cited in the Health section refer to the public health debate or controversy with respect to e-cigarettes. Yet, this is not mentioned at all in the article. This failure to accurately portray the fundamental controversy that surrounds the usage stats and medical topics creates an inaccurate and non-neutral portrayal of the subject.

Evidence:

• Hajek 2014 review: "The reaction by the public health community to this unfolding phenomenon has ranged from enthusiastic support to vigorous opposition."
• Polosa et al. 2013 review: "The e-Cigarette is a very hot topic that has generated considerable global debate."

Proposal

• The Health section should start with a prominent subsection accurately portraying the topic as controversial;
• This subsection should caution the reader that positions of both sides are based on thin evidence and likely to change as research develops;
• We should then summarize the position of each side, before delving into the details of who said what when.

Your thoughts? Mihaister (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Count me in. At minimum it would accurately show that the health effects are hypothetical and controversial, which has to be a huge improvement on the current version. Right now it looks like a crude attempt to smear vaping with every imaginary risk that can be dragged up. Some balance would be great.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 19:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is poor evidence. This article should not turn into a hodgepodge of what supporters or opponents think. QuackGuru (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Why not? At the moment it's just a hodgepodge of what opponents are concerned about. There are no known health effects of vaping, apart from the whole not smoking any more thing, but the article is dominated by fearmongering rubbish.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

CheesyAppleFlake, you touched on one of the reasons e-cigarettes hold so much promise and controversy. There are those who no matter what you tell them will continue to find some way of getting nicotine, they wont quit. Assessing the quit rates of these people is insane. Scare them away from e-cigarettes and you scare them right back to tobacco ones. Each person scared away is one person doomed to bad health and a fast death. Its like Chemo, the drugs are not perfect, but they are better than the outcome of letting things go on. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support the controversy on the harm reduction aspect is underdeveloped and in that context, this paper might be interesting:

  Hajek, Peter; Foulds, Jonathan; Le Houezec, Jacques; Sweanor, David; Yach, Derek (2013). "Should e-cigarettes be regulated as a medicinal device?". The Lancet Respiratory Medicine. 1 (6): 429–431. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(13)70124-3. PMID 24429230.

  --Kim D. Petersen 22:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support in spirit My support would be hinged on an agreement to stay on the controversial aspect, and not get into yet another section that is a hodgepodge of claims trying to prove it isnt controversial. So many of the sources we use have "unknown", "uncertin", or "concerns" language added to them it is a given that enough material exists to make quite a healthy section. AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Not yet - before we make a controversy section, how about representing both sides of the controversy with the statements that the MEDRSs reviews already included in the article use first? The fact that the widest-ranging MEDRSs in the article are summarized as if they don't make statements diametrically opposed to the unreviewed WHO conference proceedings is an abhorrent violation of WP:NPOV and an affront to the principles of building an accurate encyclopedia. EllenCT (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Would you be willing to propose some text illustrating what you had in mind? Mihaister (talk) 22:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support (obviously) and agree that the "Controversy" section should not be another expansive one-upmanship exercise resulting in a jumbled mess of claims, counter-claims, caveats, attributions, and loaded language. I'm envisioning a concise, neutral exposition of the controversy and relevant positions. that might be even as simple as the Hajek quote from above: position 1="enthusiastic support", position 2="vigorous opposition." No details, no health claims... Mihaister (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You might want to suggest a small, few lines example that most can agree on to this section. Id say all but thats near impossible on this article. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Opppose an invitation to Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view#Giving_.22equal_validity.22_can_create_a_false_balance. Cloudjpk (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

  How exactly would describing the controversy be unbalanced? Are you saying that it cannot be described neutrally? (by WP:NPOV not false balance?) --Kim D. Petersen 00:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The goal of this article is to describe Electronic Cigarettes neutrally. The means to that end is best evidence. Points of view are not evidence. Cloudjpk (talk) 01:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

In that case, lets remove any claim that is about "concerns" because those are points of view without facts. AlbinoFerret (talk) 02:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Just another effort to ghettoize the health concerns that form the bulk of what is discussed in most lay and scholarly treatments of the subject. The fact is that 90% of what is out there discusses potential health effects. Attempts to turn this article into a "gee whiz, aren't these things cool" and "oh by the way, a few fringe voices have expressed health concerns" article is seriously NNPOV. Its like writing an article about the Nixon presidency and moving all discussion of Watergate into a "Controversies" section. Health effects are core to the story. Formerly 98 (talk) 01:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The RS's make the health aspect central to this topic, we must follow; hiving this stuff off to one side would violate our requirement to maintain neutrality, which is non-negotiable. Alexbrn 06:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)