Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Inappropriate language

The phrase "put into the air" keeps getting edited into the article. This expression is clearly an underhanded tactic to use loaded language and make a reference to illegal drugs. This prejudiced POV is unencyclopedic and must stop. Mihaister (talk) 19:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

A [Google search] shows the drugs usage is rare. There is not one reference to illegal drugs in the top 100 results returned. The vast majority are rather references to air pollution, which is the topic here. Cloudjpk (talk) 20:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Please! this is a well known and widely used slang phrase in reference to drugs. Regardless, there are countless more appropriate, accurate, and neutral ways to express the notion that aerosol emissions may contain whatever. Mihaister (talk) 20:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

You do realise "may" contain is original research? QuackGuru (talk) 20:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

No one is disputing it's used in reference to drugs. What the Google search shows is the far more common use is in reference to air pollution. Cloudjpk (talk) 20:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with User:QuackGuru as to WP:OR. That was not a good choice of wording on my part. The statement should reflect the reporting in the source, something along the lines of "Studies found some e-cigarettes aerosol to contain known carcinogens, ultrafine particles, and heavy metals..." Here, the qualifier "some" is not OR, since the studies in question obviously did not measure emissions from all e-cigarettes, thus a generic statement about all such devices is unsupported. Mihaister (talk) 21:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

"Some" is problematic as it implies some others are emission-free. I would agree that a generic statement about all devices would unsupported (and indeed would be hard to support, with hundreds of brands on the market and more arriving all the time), but no such statement is made: "all" is not used here. Cloudjpk (talk) 21:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Not using "some" would imply that all e-cigarettes emit these. The studies referenced in Grana are not usable to make such statements - in fact Grana's statement about Heavy metal in e-cigs is derived from a single studyWilliams et al.(2013) which tested 22 cartomizers from one manufacturer. This is not a generically usable result. --Kim D. Petersen 22:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Not as strongly as "some" implies "not others"; in general in English lack of a qualifier is probably the best you can do. In this specific context perhaps "tested devices were found" might serve; would that work for you?Cloudjpk (talk) 22:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

We cannot make generic claims without supporting literature, and that we do not have here. We have evidence for one type of product from one manufacturer - thus we cannot make a generic claim. --Kim D. Petersen 00:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

And just as a side-note: There was/is a previous consensus on not using Grana et al. alone, but to compare it to other reviews, since earlier we've had way too much WP:WEIGHT put on that review. Editors seem once again to be cherry-picking from the Grana review, instead of focusing on the broad view within the scientific literature. --Kim D. Petersen 22:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Another review is used: [Burstyn 2014] Cloudjpk (talk) 23:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Which specifically states "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.", so we most certainly shouldn't make such an inference in our article, if we want to adhere to WP:NPOV (and we must!). --Kim D. Petersen 23:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The article states and provides citations for both the measurement of the pollutants and the belief that they're not a health concern.Cloudjpk (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

After reading you comment, I added this. The word "some" is original research. QuackGuru (talk) 23:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Since we now have a review that specifically states that metals are not found in any amount that warrents health concerns - we can't let the statement stand as it is, per WP:NPOV. And it would be nice if you could cite the specific place in Burstyn where you "the majority" comes from? Not that i disagree with the sentence - but i can't find any support for it in the review. --Kim D. Petersen 23:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

"Nicotine is present in most e-cigarette liquids and has TLV of 0.5 mg/m3 for average exposure intensity over 8 hours." QuackGuru (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thank you. Can you now comment on the metal issue? --Kim D. Petersen 00:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I can not find that quote in the paper linked to. AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC) I found it later, search doesnt work on that page AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Done. QuackGuru (talk) 00:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Erh? No. WP:NPOV is not equal time for all sides. We need to establish the WP:WEIGHT here. We most certainly can't imply with one hand, and object with the other. --Kim D. Petersen 00:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Both text use in-text attribution: A 2014 review...

There is a lot of discussion on this among reviews. I think I can include even more statements on this. QuackGuru (talk) 00:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there really? Demonstrate it please. I find it interesting that Grana et al. doesn't quote any of these reviews then? Bustyn(2014) specifically rules out these concerns in the "Key conclusions" section of that review. And that goes for Grana's rather vague statement about carcinogens as well. --Kim D. Petersen 00:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I usually review PUBMED for sources. Bustyn (2014) does not rule out the concerns. What Bustyn (2014) said was "inferred" or assumed. Side note: Other editors can continue to suggest sources (or text) for me to summarise. QuackGuru (talk) 00:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Since as far as i can tell, none of the 7 studies resulting from your search are reviews... then i'm really confused. (are you doing WP:OR?) Burstyn's Key conclusions section does rule out side-stream carcinogenity as an issue - such as TSNA's => no measurable risk for cancer etc; In fact the only concern that Burstyn sees is with the high levels of Glycerine and Propylene Glycol, which aren't carcinogens or toxic, but where the magnitude of the exposure is novel. --Kim D. Petersen 01:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

That's what we need. Continuing to make good suggestions. Done. Please review. QuackGuru (talk) 04:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I find it curious that you did not reply to any of the substantive arguments in my comment, and instead choose to singularly focus on something peripheral, and then insert it into the article, without due consideration of what is actually in the Burstyn paper. How you get Burstyn's argument for further study on long term exposure to PG and VG to be A) A side-stream issue, B) important enough to single out (per WP:WEIGHT) is to say the least ... curious. And that you then argue that it should have been a suggestion ... Hmmmm. --Kim D. Petersen 06:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Its a question for further study WP:FUTURE in Byrstyn, not a result, fact, or a finding. As such it it has no weight and shouldnt be in the article imho. AlbinoFerret (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:FUTURE says "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." The reader understands "The benefits and risks of electronic cigarette use are uncertain.[4][5]" The research is still the infancy stages but we have to tell the reader the current state of knowledge.

The text is a sourced assumption from the Burstyn source based on the current evidence. If editors want to tweak the text (without altering the meaning) or expand it that would be fine with mean. QuackGuru (talk) 16:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Its not a finding, its speculative. Until you have research on it from a reliable source, it has no place here. The reference you use says there is no problem but that if levels rise to a specific point some research should be done. Since it hasnt been done its in the future. We have no idea when or if such a study will even be done. There isnt even a date or a discussion of when it may possibly be done. What you have is a suggestion. As such its way to soon to add the excerp that raises questions when the source itself says there is no evidence of a problem at present. AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

See WP:FUTURE: "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included,..."

It is sourced research from a reliable WP:MEDRS compliant systematic review (PMID 24406205). Sources can make assumptions and we can write about it here. If there is an issue with the current wording please improve the wording. QuackGuru (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Here let me put the whole sentence you cut off "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view." Seculation about causes, maybe, but speculation about something that hasnt been proved to even happen isnt proper.

The full section from Burstyn that you pulled the statement from

"By the standards of occupational hygiene, current data do not indicate that exposures to vapers from contaminants in electronic cigarettes warrant a concern. There are no known toxicological synergies among compounds in the aerosol, and mixture of the contaminants does not pose a risk to health. However, exposure of vapers to propylene glycol and glycerin reaches the levels at which, if one were considering the exposure in connection with a workplace setting, it would be prudent to scrutinize the health of exposed individuals and examine how exposures could be reduced. This is the basis for the recommendation to monitor levels and effects of prolonged exposure to propylene glycol and glycerin that comprise the bulk of emissions from electronic cigarettes other than nicotine and water vapor. "

A little later in the same section.

"The cautions about propylene glycol and glycerin apply only to the exposure experienced by the vapers themselves. Exposure of bystanders to the listed ingredients, let alone the contaminants, does not warrant a concern as the exposure is likely to be orders of magnitude lower than exposure experienced by vapers. "

Its a recommendation to do something if specific things happen. But it hasnt been found to happen yet and the resarch has not been done. Since it hasnt been done,its in the future, speculative in questioning if something should be done, it has no weight. Not only that but the source says there is no concern for anyone but the vaper further down. AlbinoFerret (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Lastly, the original quote was about the vaper, not second hand aerosol so its out of context and does not prove the point made. Since that is the case, I removed it. AlbinoFerret (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Why are you cherry-picking sentences within the paper, that have a lot more context than we can provide here, instead of summarizing the "Key Findings" section? Here the context is: If it had been within a work-space environment, then the amount inhaled would be so high that, despite not being a health risk, one would try to minimize the exposure ... But it isn't, it is a voluntary exposure, and all Bustyn concludes from this, is that more research should be done into what physiological effects this might have. Not to mention that you've put it into the "second hand aerosol" section, when it is rather clearly isn't about side-stream vapor but instead about directly inhaled vapor. Finally: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate repository if information, we don't just pick and choose things that we personally find interesting. --Kim D. Petersen 18:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Marked off second-hand aerosol section as NPOV suspect

I've marked off the section as not NPOV, since there is now an almost singular reliance on cherry-picked aspects from the Grana review, with no apparent real attempt at seeing what the general weight of the issue is in other reviews. --Kim D. Petersen 06:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

You have not provided other reviews to add balance to the section. I am more than happy to expand the section or add content to balance the section. You have not provided additional information from other sources and there is no weight issue. You haven't shown any problem with anything. Please provide other sources for editors to add more information. QuackGuru (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Other reviews discussing the topic of 2nd hand exposure to e-cig aerosol, which should be added to the section: McNeill et al. (2014), Hajek et al. (2014), Farsalinos and Polosa (2014), Bates (2014), West et al. (2014), Burstyn (2013). Clearly the weight of evidence stands against Grana et al., so, until these are properly reviewed and discussed, this section cannot be seen as compliant with WP:NPOV. Mihaister (talk) 17:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Which sources are in the article and what is the reference number for each source in the article? QuackGuru (talk) 17:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we need to look at the way some of these quotes are being used. I removed one quote that was out of context, I believe the heavy metals is out of context as well. Looking at Grana the heavy metals are not in the second hand exposure section. Aerosol doesnt always mean second hand, it can indicate what is coming from the device. As such it would be wrong to place in the second hand section unless studies found it to be in exhaled vapor. AlbinoFerret (talk) 19:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

When it is not second hand aerosol the text can be moved to the safety section. QuackGuru (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

What i'd rather like to know, is why you want to focus on heavy metals at all? Given that Burstyn addresses this, in a review that is specifically addressed at examining the individual risks in vapor, and comes to the conclusion that "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" and this with the context of saying that the papers on this topic are non-conclusive/non-comprehensive (by for instance confusing table-salt with sodium [see section Inorganic compounds in Burstyn]). And since Grana is a non-specific paper (about all aspects of vaping including policy recommendations), and which doesn't actually cite or quantify the "risk". I have a real hard time understanding why any WP:WEIGHT is given to this. Quite frankly it seems cherry-picked to me. --Kim D. Petersen 20:07, 8 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" I did summarise this point per weight. QuackGuru (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

And once more you completely ignore my question on WP:WEIGHT and why you think this is something that should go into the article. And further why the Burstyn (the specialized review) is quoted second, while the Grana (broad, unfocused paper) is quoted first. You also haven't addressed the questions about other reviews. --Kim D. Petersen 21:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I noticed you split up the two thoughts, so I just edited them next to each other.

I aslo did some editing on the conitinine claim to reflect what the study actually did. It orignally said this

Nonsmokers when exposed to secondhand e-cigarette aerosol were found to have detectable levels of the nicotine metabolite cotinine in their blood.

I replaced it with this

"Nonsmokers when exposed to e-cigarette aerosol produced by a machine and pumped into a room were found to have detectable levels of the nicotine metabolite cotinine in their blood.[2] The same study pointed out that 80% of nicotine is normally absorbed by the vaper, so the results may be higher than in actual second hand exposure." AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

But your reply still does not explain why you used a study that was clearly about first hand exposure in the second hand exposure section. AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

You can move any text to the appropriate section when it is not second hand exposure. The sentence beginning with "Nonsmokers when exposed" is about exposure into a room and it also compared it to the actual second hand exposure. QuackGuru (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I just did as you suggested, editing out things already covered in the safety section so as not to duplicate and add excess weight. AlbinoFerret (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The second hand section now reads as:

Second hand aerosol

Although research is limited, it is transparent that e-cigarette emissions are not simply "harmless water vapor," as is commonly claimed. E-cigarettes do not smolder the way traditional cigarettes do, so they do not emit smoke, but bystanders are at a potential risk to the exhaled e-cigarette aerosol. Generally e-cigarette aerosol has notably fewer toxicants than cigarette smoke (other than particulates) and is likely to pose less harm to others. Other studies concluded that the current evidence indicates that the levels of contaminants are not of significant health concern for human exposures by the standards used in workplaces to ensure safety. Nonsmokers when exposed to e-cigarette aerosol produced by a machine and pumped into a room were found to have detectable levels of the nicotine metabolite cotinine in their blood. The same study pointed out that 80% of nicotine is normally absorbed by the vaper, so the results may be higher than in actual second hand exposure. There are concerns about pregnant women using e-cigarettes or are subjected to second hand e-cigarette aerosol.

It looks more balanced to me, lets let others chime in AlbinoFerret (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It is fine me but we can expand it with other reviews as suggested. See Talk:Electronic cigarette#Other reviews. QuackGuru (talk) 21:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

What would you suggest? AlbinoFerret (talk) 21:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/add.12659/pdf Passive exposure page 3. QuackGuru (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

What little there is in that section, is already covered in the article. AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Much more balanced, but i find the first sentence to be more a personal/bias comment. What does "detectable levels of nicotine metabolite..." mean? Quantity is important... The Grana review has been criticized for exactly this kind of non-specific and vague commentary, so i don't think we should include that "as-is", rather find a more specific and quantitative description. --Kim D. Petersen 21:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not our job to second guess or question reliable sources. QuackGuru (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that you are strawmanning what i said (i do not second-guess any source), assessing reliable sources, and judging what parts that are useful is exactly what we should be doing per WP:MEDASSESS(WP:MEDRS) and WP:WEIGHT(WP:NPOV). We can't just cherry-pick what we like and defend it on the basis that "it is in a reliable source"... editing involves making judgements and assessments of what material we use. --Kim D. Petersen 22:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It means that they detected continine, a chemical that shows nicotine was present but the body broke it down. But I do have a nagging question in the back of my mind. Isnt a machine working an ecigarette and the aerosol pumped into a room first hand exposure instead of second hand? AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It is (sort of). But the reason that i stated that rhetorical question is because of its non-specificy, and because i just read a paper that examined just this[1](not a WP:MEDRS - we will have to wait until it gets mention in a review) - and they find a cotinine level that is so low that it couldn't produce a physiological effect (such as heart-rate acceleration). --Kim D. Petersen 22:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Grana says its 0.5 ng/mL for e-cigarette. AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Which is afaik below the lowest observed adverse effect level for nicotine. Quantity matters. --Kim D. Petersen 22:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Our article on Cotinine states that "Cotinine levels <10 ng/mL are considered to be consistent with no active smoking." and below levels for moderate passive exposure. Unfortunately no reference is given. --Kim D. Petersen 23:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Strangely enough Grana here has an error, since the Flouris et al(2013)[2] study finds serum cotinine levels for passive vaping at 2.6 ± 0.6 ng/mL. --Kim D. Petersen 23:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised that Grana has errors. :) AlbinoFerret (talk) 02:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Still well below the 10 ng/mL threshold you mentioned so the error is a moot point. Either way, I'm inclined to agree with Kim that quantity matters for the reasons she mentioned above. If they're present at detectable levels, but below levels known to be physiologically harmful (or if they're above and at levels known to be harmful), then I agree that this is important information and merits mention in the article. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree as well, if the whole section isnt considered a moot point because of the level and removed, then it needs to be addressed in the article. AlbinoFerret (talk) 13:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Other reviews

• Hajek et al. (2014) Passive exposure page 3

• Farsalinos and Polosa (2014)

• Bates (2014)

• West et al. (2014), Burstyn (2013).

Which sources are already in the article? Please point to where they are in the article. What is the reference number for each one in the article? QuackGuru (talk) 21:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

(PMID 25083263) QuackGuru (talk) 07:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Emissions in lede info being removed

@AlbinoFerret and Mihaister: Both of you removed the statement "The e-cigarette aerosol emissions contain the addictive drug nicotine, ultrafine particles, and other chemicals. (Grana)" from the lede, saying to check the talk page. This seems like a reasonable enough addition to that space. What is your objection to it? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The edit summary was "Undid revision 628952674 by Jmh649 (talk) read talk page before reverting". This was incorrect. There was no specific discussion to remove it from the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I've restored it; it's in the (good) source so in lieu of a very good reason for exclusion, we should relay what the source says. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The section is already being discussed in the talk section and its not settled. Additions could have been better served on the talk page to reach consensus. AlbinoFerret (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

See ongoing discussions here and here. Mihaister (talk) 18:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

There was no ongoing discussions to delete the sentence from the lede and no rationale argument is being made to delete it. QuackGuru (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Quite: consensus has to be rooted in our WP:PAGs; vexatious objections don't count for anything. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

May I suggest you propose your addition in the working draft of the LEDE under discussion above on this page, so that we may reach consensus. Mihaister (talk) 18:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The article may be edited at any time by any editor in line with our WP:PAGs; forming a local consensus on a big topic like this is futile and making it a choke point to deflect unwanted edits smacks of WP:OWNership. I note you are now edit warring your preferred version of the lede, and you have been warned accordingly. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

As you can imagine, I disagree with your characterization of the situation, and rather consider that the current edits to the article lede are part of the typical WP:BRDC. However, I'm inclined to view the continued B edits to the article lede as intent to sidestep the DC part of BRDC. That being said, I do wish to continue having a civilized discussion on this topic, and, if others consider that a prerequisite of continued discussion is to have this statement in the article lede, so be it. Mihaister (talk) 18:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems an important (and short) addition and worth having. Johnbod (talk) 01:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

While it may be important and short, it was already in the article, it was just copied and placed in the lede. Perhaps more should be just copied and pasted into the lede, and we can then have one that has mammoth paragraphs. AlbinoFerret (talk) 02:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

It was not copied and placed in the lede. It is slightly different than the text in the body. The lede should summarise the body. Your objection is not the specific text. Your objection is the entire paragraphs lede. You obviously disagree with Wikipedia's WP:LEADLENGTH. QuackGuru (talk) 02:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Well in for a penny, in for a pound. If we are going to add things in the article already there are a dozen or so Id like to add in the intrest of NPOV. We can keep it to four paragraphs as you pointed out in WP:LEADLENGTH, but they might get to be big ones. AlbinoFerret (talk) 02:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

You and Mihaister haven't provided an argument for deleting the text from the lede. You generally don't like detailed ledes but the lede is very short for this article. QuackGuru (talk) 03:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Framework Convention Alliance policy statement

On 7 October 2014, FCA released their briefing for the upcoming FCTC COP-6. You can read it here. Do you think this fits the MEDRS definition of reputable scientific body?

Even if it doesn't, I find this is a rare document by a notable organization that portrays the complexity of the public health debate surrounding the topic of e-cigarettes without appearing to advocate for one side or the other. Interesting read... Mihaister (talk) 22:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Seeing how the FCA helps in the formation of the FCTC negotiated under the auspices of the World Health Organization and also monitors compliance with the treaty I would say it fits that section. AlbinoFerret (talk) 13:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I would very much doubt that the FCA is [[]Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Medical_and_scientific_organizations|MEDRS] but, as you say, it's a very interesting document - not least in its summarising of some of the areas of disagreement and areas of consensus. Having said that, if there is any announcement of a WHO position from COP6 it will presumably happen in the next few days, so rather than spending time and effort on putting in the FCA points now, it might be worth waiting for that and doing it all in one edit. Barnabypage (talk) 09:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

This (in my mind) opens the question as to whether the WHO report that is used currently in our article is a MEDRS - since it is not an official document or report, but briefing material to the delegates to COP-6. It is not even the final version that we are using, since it exists in a revision 1 version[3]. As far as i can tell, this is Grey literature, but editors here are considering it more reliable than full peer-reviewed review articles in well-respected journals. --Kim D. Petersen 22:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Consensus for adding this

Not seeing the consensus for adding "The WHO position has been criticized by a group of scientists and public health experts as having made "important errors, misinterpretations and misrepresentations of the studies reviewed" and that it uses "alarmist language to describe findings and to present opinion as though it were evidence."" Interesting that one of the authors is funded by an e-cig company. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The WHO's position has not been criticized but the WHOs recently commissioned report. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Rephrase the "object" of the criticism as you see fit, but censoring the MEDRS-compliant McNeill study is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Otherwise wrt to implied COI, travel reimbursements do not constitute "funding" and a "manufacturer of e-liquids" is not the e-cig industry. Also, recall the discussion above on this talk page, where a Federal Judge passed ruling that pharma funding does represent a COI with respect to tobacco topics. If you qualify publications in the article based on association with e-cig industry, in the interest of NPOV, associations with the pharmaceutical industry must also be disclosed. Mihaister (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

We could summarize it as "this report has been criticized" but quoting large amount is undue weight. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

May I propose you summarize this publication with what you think is due weight, and we'll take it from there. Mihaister (talk) 07:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I think we should wait and see what WHO decides based on this report they commissioned. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. WHO already wrote their report and recommendations for FCTC. Irrespective of the outcome from FCTC COP6 (which, BTW is a political rather than scientific forum), the McNeill study stands on its own as a peer-reviewed secondary source, presenting a critical evaluation of the WHO-commissioned report, as well as a review of the existing literature. Mihaister (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the criticism is needed to point out the problems with the WHO report. Simply because the WHO report carries weight and simply saying someone disagrees with it gives lesser weight to the peer reviewed secondary report. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed text to summarize McNeill critique

In the interest of making progress on this topic, here's a proposition for some text to summarize this critique in light of the discussions above.

The WHO-commissioned report forming the basis for its position has been criticized by a group of scientists and public health experts for selectively reviewing the available evidence and misrepresenting study findings.

Please modify the text above in preparation for insertion in the article. Please note that the WHO position is discussed extensively in the article, thus given far more weight than the short sentence proposed above for the McNeill publication, reflecting the due weight discussion above. Mihaister (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

"forming the basis for its position" What position? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The report, when issued by the WHO forms a position that is recognized]. AlbinoFerret (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

That's correct, AlbinoFerret. The report linked above and cited in the main article clearly states on the front page: "Report by WHO", therefore accurately being recognized as the position of WHO on this issue. The commissioned report published by Grana et al. is a distinct document and is cited throughout the position statement prepared by WHO. Mihaister (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not a review [4] and thus hold less weight. Do not feel it should be mentioned. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Critique is synonymous with review. AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Feelings should not play into wiki editors' choices of which evidence to discuss. See WP:NPOV. The fact is, McNeill et al. is a peer-reviewed secondary source published in a mainstream journal, thus meets all the criteria in WP:MEDRS. If no objective discussion takes place here I'm taking this arbitrary censorship to mediation. Mihaister (talk) 22:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Will request further opinions for you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Might I suggest reading this page WP:CAN AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Why is that? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Because it has a list of good places to ask for opinions and its possible you may be unaware of them all. AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose including this, the referenced item is a press release. Zad68 17:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

A press-release with a DOI number?? Sorry, but you are wrong. The press-release is about the paper - the paper is not the press-release. You might have taken the time to read the press-release which makes this clear by sentences such as "The article by McNeill and colleagues takes nine key statements ...." --Kim D. Petersen 17:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, User:Zad68, that is incorrect. The referenced item is a peer-reviewed article. The link posted by User:Zad68 is indeed a press release, but that's not what's cited here. Mihaister (talk) 18:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The paper itself isn't listed in PubMed as a review article, as claimed above. A "critique" isn't the same thing as a review article. They are not in the same category of weight, especially when the the review article it's critiquing is by the WHO. Zad68 18:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

A peer-reviewed reply to a paper will/can never be a review. So what you are saying is that the normal scientific process of papers is invalidated by WP:MEDRS? Even further the paper that we are originally talking about, is also not a review listed in PubMed - so how do we go forward? --Kim D. Petersen 21:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The distinction you're drawing is purely semantic. The article clearly does not present new or original experimental results, but rather tries to "identify, appraise, select and synthesize all high quality research evidence and arguments relevant" to the topic at hand, which is a direct quote from Literature review. If that does not make it a review article, I don't know what would. That being said, even if there's disagreement as to the "label" of this publication, the fact remains it is a secondary source listed in PubMed and should be discussed in the article, even if it is being given less weight. Censoring this high-quality source just because it disagrees with WHO is inappropriate, unscientific, and unencyclopedic. Mihaister (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't take my word for it, take PubMed's. There is a meaningful difference, per WP:MEDRS, in how an article is categorized by PubMed. Based on your interpretation a letter to the editor written by an "independent researcher" (i.e. unaffiliated layperson) could equally qualify as a "review". There is a lot of garbage in PubMed that meets the bar of "secondary source listed in PubMed" so that qualifier holds no weight. PubMed makes a much stronger distinction, and maintains a distinct category for "Review article". Zad68 18:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The publication in question is not a letter to the editor, but rather a peer-reviewed article, so that comparison is misleading. Whereas I might agree with you that the qualifier "secondary source listed in PubMed" holds no weight, "peer-reviewed secondary source listed in PubMed" does, whether or not it's tagged as "Review" in the PubMed database. Mihaister (talk) 19:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The goalposts are detailed in WP:MEDRS they haven't moved. Zad68 19:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually you are moving the goalposts - since WP:MEDRS doesn't say that we can only use reviews. It says we can only use secondary sources - and this is a secondary source per WP:MEDRS. This is not, and cannot be a primary source per WP:MEDRS. --Kim D. Petersen 21:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - Whether press release or critique it doesn't hold to WP:RS. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not hearing objective or relevant arguments as to why this publication should not be mentioned in the article. The discussion above seems to be a combination of appeal to authority and moving the goalposts. I would like to open this discussion to a wider contributor base with an RfC in the sci topic area. Any objections? Mihaister (talk) 19:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You're being told the correct stuff, it's up to you to hear it... Please notify WT:MED if you're going to post something related at WP:RSN. Zad68 19:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

How exactly is it not a WP:RS? It is peer-reviewed, it is a secondary source, it is PubMed indexed (PMID:25196419), and finally it is published in a MEDLINE catalogued journal[5]. Are we redefining WP:RS and WP:MEDRS here? --Kim D. Petersen 21:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Apparently this is not WP:RS because it criticizes WHO, which is obviously unassailable because it is WHO. My head is still spinning at the circularity of the argument. Again, the discussion above is devoid of objective, verifiable argument for censoring of this source. Mihaister (talk) 02:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a government, it's a privately-run website, and so the accusation of "censorship" is off-base. "Peer-reviewed secondary source" isn't the bar. If you'd like to open this up to a wider discussion audience, please notify WT:MED where you've started the discussion. Zad68 02:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting position from an admin... I was rather under the impression Wikipedia is not censored. Mihaister (talk) 04:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

What does being an admin have to do with this content discussion? Read WP:NOTCENSORED, it has nothing to do with this. Zad68 04:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:COMPREHENSIVE is more directly on point: it says Wikipedia "does not purposefully omit (i.e. suppress or censor) non-trivial, verifiable, encyclopedically-formatted information" Mihaister (talk) 05:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

To me it also speaks against sound scientific reasoning. Placing one source as infallible, that cant be questioned and cant have its errors pointed out is a prescription for disaster. Its kind of like religion where a holy text cant be subjected to questions. AlbinoFerret (talk) 11:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Some of the most important scientific advancements have come by those that spoke against the prevailing point of the day, often opposed by the so called experts or groups that were said to know the truth. That is a true scientific method, to question everything, regardless of who says or publishes it. While it may not be the case here that an important discovery may be made it may influence peoples lives. Silencing criticisms of opposing points of view based on who said it is just so wrong I dont have time here to cover all that is wrong with it. AlbinoFerret (talk) 13:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Can we please cut out the emotional hyperbole ("censorship", "religion", "holy text", "truth!"), it's disruptive and interferes with the content discussion we should be having.

While WP:COMPREHENSIVE is surely a well-meaning user essay, the actual controlling Wikipedia content policy here is WP:WEIGHT. In the cases where it's a user essay vs. a Wikipedia content policy, the policy always wins. There are lots of policies like this that direct us to omit otherwise perfectly verfiable content sourced even to peer-reviewed secondary sources. The issue with the proposed use of McNeill et al. is basically WP:GEVAL. The WHO is an extremely influential authority and a report from them gets a lot of weight. It's a mistake to line up commentary on it from authors with competing interests as if it were in the same ballpark. Zad68 13:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Its not hyperbole to point out the problems with your reasoning. Its unscientific to silence problems with a scientific paper. Your argument sounds like one a religious zealot would make with criticisms of the Bible. Just replace WHO with Bible. AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you implying that the McNiel paper is somehow dishonest because the authors who found problems with the report the WHO funded and issued have different interests? Exactly who is going to look into problems with a report? People who agree or disagree with the WHOs stance and reasoning? Especially as we see here there few are willing to question the WHO. This is all starting to look like a prime example of groupthink AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a shame you're choosing to continue using such hyperbole. Regardless, nope, not what I said. I'll be happy to respond to on-topic points. Zad68 15:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point, dismissing the reasoning on the infallibility of a source until the argument is framed as they want it is something a religious zealot would do. AlbinoFerret (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Zad68 please explain in detail how the source isn't a WP:MEDRS. Specifically explain to us how a peer-reviewed secondary source (per MEDRS), fails to be a WP:RS. Do notice that claiming that it has to be a review is not an argument, since WP:MEDRS doesn't require secondary sources to be reviews - it simply states that reviews are the best (but not only) sources. You've used a lot of time to shoot the messenger, by pointing out how other editors go over the top - but you haven't so far argued against the source. (combine this with the fact that the WHO sponsored report isn't a position statement, or other official material, but simply a conference paper (see MEDRS for this - which states that such has less weight than actual published papers in peer-reviewed journals)) --Kim D. Petersen 16:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I found this discussion quite constructive, so thank you for participating. It turns out, the problem User:Zad68 was having is not one of WP:RS at all, but rather one of WP:WEIGHT, in the sense that Zad68 and others above feel strongly that the WHO position carries so much weight that any critique cannot possibly be mentioned without creating a WP:GEVAL situation. So I have another proposal that may lead to consensus here, which I'll open up in a new section for clarity. Please feel free to continue this discussion as well. Mihaister (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

New approach to present McNeill article

The McNeill publication directly addresses claims made by the Grana publication, which has gained huge weight in the current version of the Wiki article. It almost looks like the current version of the Wiki article is little more than a repetitive annotated conspectus of the Grana study. Therefore, the McNeill article ought to be used to provide balance to this article in accurately representing the current state of science. In the interest of moving forward, I'm willing to acquiesce that McNeill does not have enough weight to challenge the WHO position, provided we present their review of the claims put forward by Grana.

For example, the lede references Grana in stating:

E-cigarette brands have been rapidly expanding using aggressive marketing campaigns similar to those used to popularize cigarettes in the 1950s and 1960s

To provide balance to this statement, McNeill stated that such a statement "seems intended to create an emotional response" and proposed a more accurate way to put this information in perspective:

"There is as yet no evidence as to the importance of different marketing strategies to optimise the benefits to public health"

Other claims made by Grana also appear to be one-sided reviews of the existing evidence and McNeill presents alternative statements which take into account evidence from both sides of the scientific debate over ecigs. Mihaister (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Mihaister I'm glad you're finding this discussion constructive, truly!

The thing you're still missing is WP:WEIGHT. WP:BALANCE redirects to WP:NPOV, and one of the key messages of that policy page is WP:WEIGHT: viewpoints are represented in proportion to the prominence found in the published, reliable sources. It is a common mistake to say that because an article carries viewpoint X, it also must carry the viewpoint of opposite-of-X, or (even worse) that if an article has a paragraph of a certain size about viewpoint X, it must also devote about equal space to viewpoint opposite-of-X, to satisfy "balance."

The way it needs to work is that if the published reliable sources are dominated by viewpoint X, so must our article be. Grana et al. is a recent review article published in Circulation, which has the #1 top impact factor rating among all journals in its subject area, and further is associated with the AHA, one of the most prominent and influential medical associations. Therefore per WP:NPOV it deserves huge weight in our article. If another large influential organization like the WHO agrees with the view, even more so. Once again, commentary from authors with competing interests are not in the same ballpark. Zad68 02:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps my optimism was premature. Here I was thinking we were making progress, when you circle right back to appeal to authority, moving the goalposts, and misrepresenting the weight of evidence in this field with a ridiculous straw man. It is a common mistake to base an entire worldview on a single publication by conflicted authors in a conflicted journal sponsored by a conflicted trade association. In case you weren't aware, AHA is making a habit out of stepping into COIs: see here, here, and here for recent examples. I'm very disconcerted by the fact that your comments continue to show an immutable bias. You sanctify the Grana publication, while disparaging the otherwise comparable McNeill publication as "commentary"; you mention perceived competing interests for some coauthors of McNeill, but fail to mention the glaring and judicially-defined conflicts pervading the Grana et al. publication and the venue they chose (hint: pharma funding).

On the more quantitative aspect of this discussion, whereas Circulation might rank higher than Addiction for the topic of Peripheral Vascular Disease, it ranks lower on the topics of Tobacco Control and nicotine addiction. So, if we were to follow WP:NPOV and give due weight to these two publications it would have to be the exact opposite of what is currently done in the article. Mihaister (talk) 05:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

As you might expect I disagree with your characterization of my arguments but I'm not going to worry about that right now.

Let me try to summarize your argument: You believe Grana and McNeill are comparable. You accept that the authors McNeill have some competing interests (at least you don't argue against) but you're saying Grana isn't any better. In particular you feel the AHA equally has competing interests, and point to articles discussing that idea (but the articles do not discuss electronic cigarettes) and a lawsuit brought by the tobacco company Lorillard against the US FDA and which mentions Benowitz, one of the authors with Grana (although that lawsuit does not discuss electronic cigarettes). You're not giving any weight to how PubMed classifies the two articles, and consider both to be "reviews" equally. You don't think the status of the journal or its association with the AHA are marks in its favor.

Do I have that right? Zad68 03:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I support Zad here, there are clear differences in weight in these articles. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 05:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

That's pretty close, Zad68. Let me clarify a few points, though:

• The extensive discussion on this very page regarding funding sources arrived at the consensus that apparent COIs are only relevant for determining weight if there is a reliable source that makes this issue a problem. In that respect, there is no RS that defines travel reimbursements by a minor e-liquid company as a relevant or potentially problematic funding source. However, the federal court judgement (i.e. RS) found that Benowitz's relationship with Pharma was a conflict with respect to tobacco-related topics, i.e. relevant and problematic in this specific field. Most of AHA's funding is also Pharma, and the articles discuss the fact that such funding constitutes competing interest in AHA's routine activity, though the articles are not specifically about e-cigarettes.
• I recognize the status and impact factor of the journal Circulation (and AHA) with respect to cardiovascular medical topics. However, I do not think they are a major venue or prominent source for publications regarding the social/behavioral aspects of tobacco use or control, nicotine addiction, smoking cessation methods and effectiveness, and many other topics discussed by Grana and relevant to e-cigarettes. The discussion of domain-specific prominence applies to AHA as well. The weight given by a source has to be considered with respect to the field of intended application of such weight.
• PubMed classification is irrelevant in this case. I respectfully disagree with your contention that only publications labeled "Review" on PubMed can be considered MEDRS, and instead submit that peer-reviewed secondary sources in respectable journals fit that criterion. Moreover, I think you might be conflating the notion of systematic review with literature review. Both Grana and McNeill fit the definition of the latter, and neither fit the definition of the former.
• Attributing weight to these publications also has to take into account the small number of available reviews in the the field as well as the weight of evidence gauged by these RS. Currently, there are few secondary sources for e-cigarette topics and most of these do not agree with the extreme view put forward by Grana: Saitta (2014), Hajek et al. (2014), Farsalinos and Polosa (2014), West et al. (2014), Arnold (2014), Burstyn (2013), Britton (2014), Caponnetto (2013), Chapman (2013), Polosa (2013), Palazzolo (2013), Etter (2011), Cahn (2011).

tl;dr - Based on current evidence, Grana and McNeill are both MEDRS, and part of a small set of available secondary literature reviews on the topic. They both warrant weight in this article, however the weight given to each position has to accurately reflect the evidence as summarized by the literature as a whole, rather than acclaim by various organizations. Mihaister (talk) 07:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I concur with the above very well written and well thought out commentary. The arguments so far for dismissing McNeill seem to be in the "i don't like it" line of argumentation. --Kim D. Petersen 14:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

We give more weight to reviews published in high quality sources than non reviews published in lesser quality sources. Circulation is one of the most well respected journals and thus it should not be the least bit surprising that it is used extensively here. This is not a WP:IDL argument but a WP:MEDRS argument.

This critique of WHO is just that a critique. It is listed as a "journal club" on the journals page [6] and is not a review by pubmed [7] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Your commentary here is somewhat fallacious. Yes we give more weight to full reviews. Correct. Circulation worth more than Addiction? Not really - it depends on the what the paper is about, both journals are highly regarded within their respective fields. That argument, is like saying, that a paper in Nature will always trump a paper in Geophysical Research Journal which is utter nonsense. User:Mihaister is entirely correct in his assessment in his second bullet-point - Addiction is actually the more to-the-point specialist journal for this kind of material. As for it being in the "journal club" section - what does that even mean? Are you saying it is non-peer-reviewed? That would be incorrect. That is a classic example of WP:IDL and grasping for straws.

Finally with regards to the WHO report. It is not as highly regarded as a full peer-reviewed paper in a journal per WP:MEDRS, since the report is not a position statement, nor an "official" report (it is supplemental material to a conference). And high-quality WP:MEDRS critiques of such material must be taken into consideration per WP:NPOV. --Kim D. Petersen 16:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Nb. No responses to papers in the scientific literature are marked as "reviews" in PubMed, since they aren't reviews in that sense of the word. So that was another WP:IDL argument. RS and MEDRS goes by secondary sources - not by what pubmed classifies things as. --Kim D. Petersen 16:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Once there are actual review articles available there's no reason to lower the sourcing standards to include critique or commentary. Maybe you missed it but WP:MEDRS does indeed make specific mention of PubMed sources tagged with publication type (ptyp) of "Review". McNeill simply isn't a review. Zad68 01:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Sigh! Could you explain to me how WP:NPOV allows for you to ignore notable critique? --Kim D. Petersen 12:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Is McNeill a WP:MEDRS source?

Since there have been a lot of claims that McNeill et al. isn't a WP:MEDRS, so lets check:

• Is it peer-reviewed. Yes.
• Is it a secondary source per MEDRS. Yes.
• Is it published in a respected journal. Yes (MEDLINE [8] subset index medicus).
• Is it pubmed indexed. Yes. (PMID:25196419)
• Is it on-topic for the journal. Yes.
• Is it by respected authors. Yes.

Conclusion: It is a WP:MEDRS

We can discuss WP:WEIGHT, but unless there are some arguments on the table that demonstrates that it isn't a MEDRS, then the usability of this paper is not in question. --Kim D. Petersen 17:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no evidence it is MEDRS compliant. Lots of sources are peer-reviewed in a respected journal and pubmed indexed. You have not made a good case. QuackGuru (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

That is a curious non-argument User:QuackGuru, you've reversed the burden of evidence. Let me be more specific: What part of WP:MEDRS does this source not follow? --Kim D. Petersen 17:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I did make an excellent argument and this was already explained to editors before. QuackGuru (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

My opinion on this source should be pretty obvious by now, but, in case anyone missed it, I agree it is MEDRS. I also agree with Kim D. Petersen that logical fallacies such as the appeal to ignorance and reverse burden of proof are not constructive in this discussion.

@User:QuackGuru - In spite of your claim to ignorance that "there is no evidence", the evidence for McNeill being MEDRS is actually displayed right above your post. Please provide verifiable evidence for your position of non-compliance, or withdraw your objection. Mihaister (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion but where was your specific rebuttal to this argument? QuackGuru (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Bullet #3 in my post above. Mihaister (talk) 17:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not a review article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The treshold for WP:MEDRS is not whether it is or isn't a review article, so once more a non-argument. That would be a potential WP:WEIGHT argument, but not a reliable source one. --Kim D. Petersen 18:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Alternatively to my above comment User:Jmh649, i would suggest that you cite the exact point in WP:MEDRS where it states that secondary sources cannot be used, unless they are review articles. Reviews are the most useful for medical information, which btw. this isn't about, but they are by no means the only reliable sources by MEDRS. Another alternative, would be if you could demonstrate either that the paper isn't peer-reviewed, the journal isn't reliable, or that the source is a primary or tertiary source per the guidelines stuck out in WP:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Definitions. Once we have the RS issue out of the way, we can continue a constructive debate on the WP:WEIGHT of the paper, and how (or if) we should use it in the article. But i'm getting a bit tired of the "it is not a MEDRS source", when that clearly isn't the case. --Kim D. Petersen 21:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

McNeill can't be considered "MEDRS" for the purpose of supporting unattributed content (in Wikipedia's narrative voice) in the article. The entirety of the article is in response to the WHO's report, it is not its own independent piece. All it could be used for might be to say, "Researchers from King's College criticized ...". The only argument is about whether this piece of commentary has received sufficient notice and demonstrated sufficient influence as to warrant a mention. So far not enough evidence has been supplied to indicate it has. Grana was instrumental in the forming of a policy statement by the WHO, one of the world's most respected and influential medical organizations. Again, McNeill isn't in the ballpark. Zad68 01:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

And once more you are talking about WP:WEIGHT and usage, rather than whether or not it is a WP:MEDRS. As for your statement: "Grana was instrumental in the forming of a policy statement by the WHO, one of the world's most respected and influential medical organizations" - that is one hell of a misstatement.. since there is no such thing as a "policy statement by the WHO" on e-cigarettes at the moment. --Kim D. Petersen 11:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I find this entire discussion tedious, and as I risk only repeating everything already mentioned I will only say we have a very clear situation where one article is being pushed to give far more weight than it ought to, in addition to not passing WP:MEDRS. Please, let it be, you're wasting time here. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 09:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

You may find it tedious, and i can tell you that i find it likewise. Especially the blatant disregard for WP:PILLARS that is presented here. You do it yourself here: You are confusing how much weight that can be put on a source, with whether the source is or isn't reliable. What you are all trying to say is: "I find McNeill to be a MEDRS, but i do not think that the content is useful (or has enough WEIGHT) to be used in the article". --Kim D. Petersen 11:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The article in question is a piece of commentary and so shouldn't be used to WP:ASSERT anything. At most it might briefly be used to relay the opinions it airs (attributed of course). On a point of detail, the article has not been finally edited/corrected and published yet, so is not yet usable here in any case. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not a "commentary" (commentary is generally not peer-reviewed). It is a peer-reviewed response article in a highly respected journal. What you are basically saying here, is that the whole methodology of scientific publishing is to be put out of effect, by MEDRS, since we here (apparently) can safely ignore published peer-reviewed replies to papers. That is impressive. I cannot recall any other scientific field in which this would be the case. Considering that the authors of this reply are responsible for quite a large percentage of the cited studies in the report/paper that they are responding to - then it is most certainly also pertinent. --Kim D. Petersen 13:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

That the orignal authors are responding to errors in how their work was used should make it usable. I am beginning understand that my above comparison of those opposed to McNiel to religious zealots is more accurate as the days go by. AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@KimDabelsteinPetersen: O it's commentary alright (or, as the authors style it, a "critique"). I – and I don't think anybody – is saying we have to "ignore" it, but when it's published any neutral treatment of it would give is its due, light, weight. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

A peer-reviewed reply in the scientific press, is generally not considered a commentary. But i am glad that you now are in agreement that it is a WP:MEDRS, and that it is WP:WEIGHT we should now focus on, now that this issue is out of the way. --Kim D. Petersen 14:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

You keep telling me what I said, when I didn't. I think the phrase "a MEDRS" here is unhelpfully binary, since MEDRS outlines a more nuanced view of sources. It's not though "a MEDRS" for asserting biomedical content, especially in the face of stronger sources. It may be due to use it briefly for an attributed statement of its authors' view. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not a source is reliable is a binary process on Wikipedia. The later process of figuring out whether such a reliable source is useful, relevant and carries enough substance to merit inclusion (WEIGHT), is not a binary one though. --Kim D. Petersen 21:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like consensus here might be heading in the direction of a brief “attributed” statement as proposed in the previous subsection, as suggested here, here, here, and here.

If you don’t agree with the proposed text, can we work together and come up with this “brief attributed statement” that we can all live with? Thanks. Mihaister (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Until it's published in final form, it's off the table. Then, something like "Some European researchers have criticized the review for its tone and what they say are 'errors' in interpretation" might have a home in the body. But I'm not sure even that isn't too much attention to give to this comparatively minor piece. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The online version is just as WP:V as the final paper form. Other than that, the phrasing by Alexbrn above looks reasonable to me. Mihaister (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not a notable critique and it is not a review. QuackGuru (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

As far as notability, your wrong, McNiel has an AM score of 276 the third highest score for a Addiction article. Click on the AM score box on the page for McNiel. Looking at who has linked to or mentioned it on the AM score page includes Time, FoxNews, sciencenewsline.com, medicalxpress.com, Reuters, and the Huffington Post included in the 23 news sites that are listed. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Popular press is irrelevant. The article is not notable among MEDRS compliant reviews. QuackGuru (talk) 01:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The press may not come into play on Medical Reliability, but may on Notability, your previous post was about Notability. AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

'tis a nice assertion that the article is "..not notable among MEDRS compliant reviews", because A) it is a strawman (not a review - not claiming to be) B) there is no evidence to back up the claim. Now can you back up the assertion that it isn't notable? --Kim D. Petersen 21:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you define the term "notable critique" please? Just so that we can all follow what it is that you are asserting. --Kim D. Petersen 21:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me? The paper is in its final form - it is only typographically that changes can happen. And it is already published, since the online version is as verifiable and final as the later paper version. What are we here, in the 20th century still? --Kim D. Petersen 19:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Not so. The paper "has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record". Personally I'm not fussed but have observed a general practice here of waiting for the VoR to appear. There's no rush after all, is there. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Those are if you'll notice all typographical changes. The content is fixed. What i was referring to is that online published papers are as reliable and verifiable as paper ones, since it is the amount of editorial control that determines that. (which is why some journals are inherently more reliable than others). --Kim D. Petersen 11:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Article Classification

Since the Electronic cigarette is not listed as a device with which to stop smoking and has been denied as such by the FDA and the the position of the WHO is they dont work as such. Is it correct to list this article in the medical and Pharmacology sections? AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

UK legislation allows, but does not compel, manufacturers to apply for pharma status (I forget the exact terminology). This is not the American Wikipedia. Johnbod (talk) 00:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Are e-cigarettes considered a medical device or product in the UK? AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually it's EU-wide, & not quite in force yet, see here: "...This will all change in 2016, when new EU rules will come into force that will improve e-cigarette safety and quality. E-cigarettes that manufacturers want to continue to sell as consumer products will be regulated under the new Tobacco Products Directive (TPD). This means they’ll come with warnings about the addictiveness of nicotine, restrictions on product design, nicotine content, and manufacturers won’t be allowed to advertise them on TV, radio and in print media. But if manufacturers want to make claims that their products can help people quit smoking, their e-cigarettes will be regulated as a medicine (in the same way as nicotine gum and patches). They will have to seek a medicines license from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). And if they’re granted a license, they won’t face the same restrictions on strength, design and advertising as those regulated as consumer products, and will still be widely available as over-the-counter medicines, and potentially available on the NHS." This is easy to source well, and not covered adequately in the article. Johnbod (talk) 01:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

So at present they are not medical devices or products, but consumer products? AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they can't be advertised as medical yet, but applications for 2016 can be made. In person retail is mainly at pharma counters/shops in fact. Johnbod (talk) 02:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

A reasonable question then is why a consumer product should be classified on Wikipedia in the medical category? I could see if, in 2016 some e-cigarette is classified as a medical device or product. But thats about a year and a half away and we have no guarantee that any will apply for or be given that classification in the UK or EU. AlbinoFerret (talk) 02:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The reasonable answer is that most medical products take years to be approved and WP:MEDMOS says nothing about waiting until they are before covering. Also there has been very extensive coverage of the subject in all general medical journals, though evidence-based trials are lacking. No doubt many are under way. Raise the matter at the medical and pharma projects if you still have concerns. I see that according to Legal status of electronic cigarettes, Austria and Denmark already class them as medical products. Johnbod (talk) 11:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Denmark doesn't classify them as medical products. They classify nicotine as a medical product. E-cigs and e-liquids themselves are not medical products, and can be sold freely - just without nicotine. --Kim D. Petersen 12:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Well you might add that to the article, but I think anyone selling e-liquids or e-cig cartridges without nicotine would fall foul of consumer protection/fraud legislation, unless this was made very clear. The normal assumption is surely that they contain nicotine. Johnbod (talk) 12:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

No, they wouldn't. 0mg e-liquid is a regular sell in e-cig shops. There are quite a large number of people who have cut down their nicotine intake, but who still want to enjoy the feeling of vaping. You can find 0mg e-liquids in all shops, both online, and in brick and mortar, for that reason. --Kim D. Petersen 20:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:MEDMOS is a guide on how to write content in a specific style, not a list of what content should or should not be included in a category. Both countries you mention have declared that e-cigarettes that contain nicotine are medical devices. The reference for Austria only talks about one device and excludes another. While there has been a lot published in medical journals, I wonder if this page would not be best served by splitting it into a device and a health effects page like traditional cigarettes are. One listed as medical, one not. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

If it got a lot bigger there are various ways it might be split, but at the moment it seems a reasonable length, and ok as it is, imo. I must say I don't think cigarette is a great model - the "Health effects" section is remarkably short and remarkably low down. There the other article is actually Health effects of tobacco, as there are the other forms. Johnbod (talk) 12:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

cigarette imho is a perfect example of how to split an article. The health effects was split off and a small section that sums up the new page took its place with a link to the other article. The ecigarette is a consumer product that imho is being taken over by a medical agenda. AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@AlbinoFerret: I'm starting to agree with you, in light of the expansive discussion we're having above, nitpicking the intricacies of WP:MEDRS and WP:WEIGHT over the McNeill study. Perhaps this article should be split into a "Consumer product" page talking about the devices, history, construction, etc. (not medical), and a link to a separate and more detailed discussion of "health effects" which would fall under the medical agenda. Just like splitting off the legal status discussion greatly improved workflow with this article, I'm inclined to believe moving the "health" section into a new article would also be beneficial. Mihaister (talk) 17:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I have been looking into splitting the page and the Wikipedia guidelines surrounding splitting. Looking at WP:SIZERULE and taking into account that the ecigarette article is at 68kb in size according to the history tab, and has grown 10kb in size in 4 months it is a very good idea to split this article. WP:SIZERULE says it should probably be split. Since the Health effects section is large and continues to grow it would make sense to split that section off. The main page would be about the device, its construction, history, etc with a small summery of the Health section and a link to the new page, the ecigarette page would be about a consumer device and not in the medical category. The Health effects section would be in the medical category. WP:SIZE has a list of reasons doe splitting at the top of the page, including "editor issues, such as talkpage tension, arguments over trivial contributions, debates on how to split up a large article, etc." AlbinoFerret (talk) 05:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I have done even more checking, and only the visible text size should be used. Thats is currently 35kb, so there isnt that great a need to split on size right now. But other factors like editing problems and long posts and lots of activity in heated talk page sections can and will play a role in its splitting. Its probably going to be needed within the next 6 months as I think a lot of new information is just on the horizon. AlbinoFerret (talk) 15:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikilink

The wikilink for Hon Lik redirects back to the history section. QuackGuru (talk) 17:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

POV problems are more and more sneaking in.... Again!

I've just removed this[9] about there being up to 1/3 of youth that are using e-cigarettes who've never smoked - cited to Grana.. That is a huge breach of WP:NPOV. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_8#Yet_more_POV_problems_.._1.2F3_of_youth_who_use_e-cigarettes_never_touched_a_cigarette... for a more thorough description of why this is inappropriate. It was inserted by User:Jmh649 here[10], in what i assume was a good faith attempt to "balance" - trouble is that the context and underlying studies do not support the text.

This again opens the discussion on how the Grana review is being cherry-picked for bites that can be used to discredit e-cigarettes, there are several in the article at the moment. If an editor uses a review, then there is a burden on that editor to make sure that the content that is selected from such a review is sufficiently corroborated in other reviews, and is not based on a select viewpoint (POV). --Kim D. Petersen 18:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the text is clearly sourced. Rather than delete it can be tweaked to address any minor issues. What is the issue? Do you think the Grana review is wrong? QuackGuru (talk) 18:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not "clearly sourced", since the source says nothing of the kind. Read the text, understand the context please. --Kim D. Petersen 18:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

So what does the source say? Please improve the wording rather than delete it. QuackGuru (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Read the linked archived discussion, which goes into rather a lot of detail on how you cannot write this. I'm not required to hold your hand here. --Kim D. Petersen 19:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Kim D. Petersen. The archived discussion clearly addresses this particular issue. Mihaister (talk) 20:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The text can be tweaked rather than wholesale deleted. Different sources say different things. Deleting this source is like cherry picking other sources and ignoring this source. QuackGuru (talk) 07:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

This source doesn't even say anything like what was stated. The context here is generic/global usage (not ever-use), so this information has no place in this context. --Kim D. Petersen 08:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

So what do you think the source says? QuackGuru (talk) 08:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:IDHT for your "pretend ignorance" here. --Kim D. Petersen 08:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The source does say something. Please try to improve the wording rather than delete it. QuackGuru (talk) 08:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I will once more refer to your pretend ignorance[11][12][13] - You've read the source, you know i've read the source, and you know that a Utah survey is not globally appliable, and that "ever-use" is not the same as "usage". --Kim D. Petersen 08:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

You acknowledged the text is not globally applicable. So it is regionally applicable. Problem solved. QuackGuru (talk) 09:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Not unless you wish to push a particular WP:POV. --Kim D. Petersen 09:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems like you are not trying to help improve the text. Every source has a difference of opinion. It is NPOV when we include the differences. With that said, do you have any suggestions for improving the text. QuackGuru (talk) 10:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The person wanting to keep a claim should make suggestions on how it might be changed to remain, not the person who thinks it should be removed. It feels like we are in the Groundhogs movie. AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Kim D. Petersen. The archicved section makes it clear it needs to be removed. AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The wording can be improved if there is a problem. The archived discussion was about a different sentence in the Smoking cessation section. QuackGuru (talk) 02:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Then make your suggestions here on how you want it changed and see if you can get others to come to consensus. I want it removed, suggest a way it can be added to the page. AlbinoFerret (talk) 18:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

another issue

Here is another that the source does not backup, and is possibly WP:OR "They may promote continuation of addiction in those who already smoke." isnt backed up by the reference. The closest we get is that its possible for "Nicotine" addiction which could be any use of tobacco not just smoking. Adding that something is "possible" is WP:WEASEL. At best this is an opinion of the author, not of a peer reviewed journal article, but a puff piece or FAQ's that doesnt even link to facts or state who wrote it. Lastly, how does the FAQ's survive WP:WEIGHT if it passes the other problems AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The text only needs some tweaking. QuackGuru (talk) 07:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Support QuackGuru here, it's very clear who is cherrypicking by attempting to remove the Grana review. In addition WP:WEASEL does not come into it. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 07:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Please cite the text in Grana that supports that text. As far as i can tell Grana only talks about addiction in collusion with dual-use, and in the "policy recommendation" section - which is, by its very nature, opinion. --Kim D. Petersen 08:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The citation isnt from Grana. So your accusations have no weight. Neither does the source. Repeating Weasel Words is just as bad as adding them yourself. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The source is a FAQ's page on www.drugabuse.gov. It has little to no weight as far as I understand. If it stays at all it might be in the body. But in the lede? I dont think it belongs there at all. AlbinoFerret (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The source is used on Wikipedia on other topics too. The source is reliable. If needed the text could be tweaked. QuackGuru (talk) 21:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem isnt reliability but Weight WP:WEIGHT. The text is the "opinion" of the site on a FAQ's page. The prominent placement in the lead is a problem because of weight. The wording is a problem because it sounds like a finding not opinion. You might want to find another source in a peer reviewed article if you want it to stay at the top of the page and in its present form. AlbinoFerret (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the source but I can tweak the text. QuackGuru (talk) 22:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

You may not have a problem, but the words used , their place in the article, and where what kind of reference it is plays intoo weight. I recommend you read WP:WEIGHT to understand the problem. AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

You might want to find an additional source if you want to keep it in the lede. AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

By the way here is the sentence from which the claim in the article is based "There is also the possibility that they could perpetuate the nicotine addiction and thus interfere with quitting." AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

It should not be hard to rewrite the text. QuackGuru (talk) 02:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Then do it, and find another reference if you want it to stay in the lede. Because the opinions on a fact's page should not be given a prominent position unless it can be found elsewhere, and not just a mirror site. If your ok with it just being in the body, rewrite it to reflect the original sentence. AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

We should summarise the body according to WP:LEDE. QuackGuru (talk) 04:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The WP:WEIGHT section is part of WP:NPOV Neutral Point of View, one of the five pilliars. A comments cherry picked from a facts's page without any other sources to back it up would skew the neutrality of the lede. It might be included in a short section of the article, but it would have to more accurately express what the sentence says. the opinions on one facts page sayng there is a "possibility" of something "may" happen does not have enough weight to be in the lede , a prominent place. Find more references and prove its not the opinion of just one page. From WP:LEDE "Instead, the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view" so you are cherry picking whats on the page you are using as a reason for it to stay when the page says the opposite. AlbinoFerret (talk)

Read the body: "A number of organizations have concerns that e-cigarettes might increase addiction to and use of nicotine and tobacco products in children.[10][41][42]"

There was no cherry picking and this has been in the lede for a long time. The text in the lede summarises the body. QuackGuru (talk) 04:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

That is completely unrelated to the sentence in the lede being discussed "They may promote continuation of addiction in those who already smoke." which only has one refrence, to a Fact's page that mentions the "possibility" that something "may" happen, and then its placed in the lead like it may happen instead of the possibility that it may happen. Its not even in the body. AlbinoFerret (talk) 05:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Surprise Surprise QuackGuru added its present form to the page! AlbinoFerret (talk) 05:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Adjusted text

Source says "In 2012, 20.3% of middle school and 7.2% of high school ever e-cigarette users reported never smoking conventional cigarettes.9 Similarly, in 2011 in Korea, 15% of students in grades 7 through 12 who had ever used e-cigarettes had never smoked a cigarette.10 The Utah Department of Health found that 32% of ever e-cigarette users reported that they had never smoked conventional cigarettes.34"

Adjusted wording to "while another review has found that up to a third of young people who have used electronic cigarettes have never smoked traditional cigarettes" as agree the previous summary did not accurately reflect the source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jmh649: so it is a finding in the paper that "a third of young people ... " - really? I thought that we were talking about a specific survey in Utah, that from every indication is a statistical outlier.... Especially considering that large population examinations such as the British tobacco toolkit haven't found even a fraction of this figure. How are you capable of jumping from a local figure to a generic "a third of young people"? The other surveys cited in Grana don't even come close either. --Kim D. Petersen 11:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

And exactly how many people did the British survey look at? It was 2,178 by the looks of it.[14] There are a number of surveys and they have found different things. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

With Great Britain having a population of 64.1 million that means only 0.0000339% of the population was looked at. Thats real questionable as to the numbers used to come to conclusions.AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

This is how surveys work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

When your using responders of that small of a percent the results are highly questionable when said to be applicable to the general population. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Only a part of the sentence is duplication

"It generally uses a heating element known as an atomizer, that vaporizes a liquid solution known as e-liquid." The part "vaporize a liquid" is duplication in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 08:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the duplication. Seems to be more relevant in the first paragraph than in the second. --Kim D. Petersen 08:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The sentence was not duplicate. Only the part "vaporize a liquid" was duplicate. QuackGuru (talk) 08:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The sentence in the lede in the first paragraph has been in the article for over a year. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I moved the text to a better spot without the duplication. QuackGuru (talk) 17:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I undid your edit because the sources and edits you made are under heavy discussion on the talk page, you did not have consensus to do them. AlbinoFerret (talk) 18:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm really surprised that it gets reverted back again and again - without actually trying to attain consensus. Seems that those that want to editwar/force their edits to the article win by default. Sigh! --Kim D. Petersen 20:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Continued disruptive editing contrary to Talk page consensus

User:QuackGuru continues a pattern of disruptive editing in direct violation of consensus on this page

diff: [15]

Please contribute to the discussion and follow the consensus reached here. Mihaister (talk) 07:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

You restored the original research such as "exhaled aerosol primarily consists of glycerol and/or propylene glycol, with small amounts of flavors, aroma transporters, and nicotine."[16] The source says "users exhale nicotine and some other particles, primarily consisting of flavours, aroma transporters, glycerol and PG".[17] You also deleted text from reliable sources. QuackGuru (talk) 08:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Yep, i've reverted it. A) because of the lack in consensus B) ignoring WP:WEIGHT (and thus WP:NPOV) and finally C) for inserting material sourced from a primary non-WP:MEDRS source. --Kim D. Petersen 12:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

More specifically the MMRW and CDC weekly reports are primary sources, and do not qualify as WP:MEDRS. Someone here is really cherry-picking to find as much negative material as possible. --Kim D. Petersen 12:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@QuackGuru Exactly how is that Original Research, explain it. AlbinoFerret (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

So, I see the disruptive editing continues ([18]), interspersed by a few ninja edits just for good measure (see [19], [20], [21]). No substantive progress can be made this way. The article is becoming a biased mess, using non-MEDRS sources to support the biased POV, and stonewalling bonified MEDRS sources that expose this bias or disagree with the underlying POV. The biased POV is further bolstered with liberal use of convoluted syntax and loaded language, some of which has already been discussed, but more shows up every day. Can we please go back to discussion and consensus. Mihaister (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (April 2014). "Notes from the field: calls to poison centers for exposures to electronic cigarettes--United States, September 2010-February 2014". MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 63 (13): 292–3. PMID 24699766. MEDRS specifically lists Centers for Disease Control and Prevention under Medical and scientific organizations. See Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Medical_and_scientific_organizations. Please stop deleting reliable sources and please stop restoring OR. The text was also misplaced. The risk for cardiovascular disease was summarised earlier in the safety section, anyhow. QuackGuru (talk) 20:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's intentional, but you're clearly misinterpreting the "illustrious organizations" provision in MEDRS. That refers to reviews of literature or policy statements based on evidence (ie secondary sources), not primary research done by staff members affiliated with such orgs. The "notes from the field" piece is in no way, shape, or form reliable for anything. Mihaister (talk) 23:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

What about the OR and misplaced text?

See Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Medical_and_scientific_organizations: "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..." The source (PMID 24699766) is definitely reliable. QuackGuru (talk) 00:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Cited source says: "emissions from ECs are incomparable to environmental particulate matter or cigarette smoke microparticles [...] the only clinical study evaluating the respiratory effects of passive vaping [...] no adverse effects were observed after exposure to passive vaping." Therefore the statement linked above, fully supported by the cited reference, neither OR, nor misplaced as claimed. Anyways, I rephrased the statement under dispute to be closer to the source.

Regarding the 'adverse effects' claims, the same source says "the reported events were not necessarily associated with EC use but may have been related to pre-existing conditions or other causes. No condition was characteristically associated with EC use." Again, not OR. Mihaister (talk) 06:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The CDC weekly reports are still not secondary source. Some CDC material can be secondary - but not everything the CDC puts out is reliable for medical material. Just as some articles in medical journals are reliable (reviews) and others aren't (case reports/direct research etc). --Kim D. Petersen 05:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes they are secondary sources and even if they were primary sources from the CDC they are still reliable according to Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Medical_and_scientific_organizations. QuackGuru (talk) 06:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The section of that guideline supports KimDabelsteinPetersen. "Statements and information from reputable major medical and scientific bodies may be valuable encyclopedic sources" and "The reliability of these sources range from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals" They may and they may not, they can means its possible, but not always. Its a primary source, which should be rarely used if at all according to the top of that page. AlbinoFerret (talk) 06:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

You claim it is "rarely used if at all according to the top of that page". That is not true according to the MEDRs section. You think the CDC source is not used on a number of articles on Wikipedia? QuackGuru (talk) 07:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Look at your link, that section is part of WP:MEDRS the top section is about using Secondary sources, from everyone. From that section "In the rare cases when they are used," while the rest of the section deals with not performing original research, the front part says primary sources should rarely be used. The case where a statement is usable is where they do a review of something or pointing out others primary work as correct, in this case they are not reviewing but doing the primary wok of conclusions and theories on data. AlbinoFerret (talk) 07:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"In the rare cases when they are used," is discussing primary sources in general.

Read under the heading Definitions: "Examples include literature reviews or systematic reviews found in medical journals, specialist academic or professional books, and medical guidelines or position statements published by major health organizations."

Like WHO, the CDC is used on Wikipedia as a reliable source. According to your argument the WHO source used in this article should be rarely used. You can check with the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. QuackGuru (talk) 07:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

They are not position statements. Neither the WHO report that we are using here, nor the CDC weekly reports, are in that category. --Kim D. Petersen 08:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Bold face from the WP:MEDRS head: Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content. - so No. You should not use primary sources, no matter what. And weekly reports from the field are primary sources. --Kim D. Petersen 08:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

They aren't primary sources, and how would you define a position statement? These are pretty much the most major health organizations you could ever get!-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 17:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

A position statement is marked as such (like these on the CDC page). You can find these on the webpages of all scientific bodies that i've come across. As for it not being a primary source, as i've said above, the definition that you are using would mean that any article that cites other articles for material by default would be a WP:MEDRS source. That would include press-releases, generic primary research articles (since they usually cite other papers), articles in Nature about what is happening in the research field etc. etc. I'm quite surprised that you'd even attempt to call this a secondary source, since it would open the floodgates for citable material, that i have a feeling that you won't like. --Kim D. Petersen 20:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

When any person or group does the original conclusions, theories and ,facts taken from raw data they are doing primary research. That is exactly what happened here. AlbinoFerret (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Yep. --Kim D. Petersen 20:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• AlbinoFerret could you help me find in this talk page the discussion about any contentious part of the reversion you made in CFCF's proposed changes? It would be nice if these changes were made piecewise rather than as a set because when so much content is changed I have trouble seeing the problem, but if this is a dispute about the reliability of a source for some bit of information then we ought to be able to reach consensus on that. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@User:Bluerasberry Simply scroll up to the start of the "Wikilink to wrong page" section here and read down. QuackGuru makes massive changes all at once dealing with each of the sections under "Wikilink to wrong page" section even though pages like WP:MEDRS WP:MEDMOS and WP:NPOV tell editors not to do them. He refuses to address any of the concerns raised on these pages and continues on with pages that dont address the problems with a bait and switch in most if not all cases. When asked to make suggestions he insists we make the changes to his edits to make them acceptable when most of the editors in these discussions dont think the material should be used based on WP:MEDRS WP:MEDMOS and WP:NPOV. Instead of working and finding a middle ground he changes things, his edit that was reversed to is basically a revert in itself. AlbinoFerret (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

One major problem that is common is that QuackGuru gets attached to wording, most of the time from his own edits. When others change them to something different to improve readability or put them in general language so that a general read can easily read them, he changes them back. Thats one of the reasons I want him to suggest changes, because when I have reworded things again, he reverts them.AlbinoFerret (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret I am unable to evaluate your statement because of its length and complexity. There is a huge amount of text here and I am not entirely clear on the points of contention. Briefly, can you direct me to the dispute in which you feel you are most in the right and where your opposition is most in the wrong? I will read and comment but I need to check things one at a time. Starting with the point that you feel is easiest to resolve might be a good place to begin.

I read the "Wikilink to wrong page" section. I will comment there. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Its not just that section but every one under it. AlbinoFerret (talk) 19:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@User:Bluerasberry:

1) It should be very simple to verify in the Talk:Electronic cigarette#Vapor that stating in Wikipedia's voice that it is Aerosol has no consensus, or generic backing in secondary sources.

2) It should also be very simple to verify that the CDC weekly newsletter "Notes from the field" is not a WP:MEDRS secondary source. This section (and Talk:Electronic cigarette#Possible source)

I'm curious as to why you revert when you haven't verified or checked the talk-page? That doesn't seem to be good WP practice. --Kim D. Petersen 20:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Especially given QuakGuru's history. AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Electronic_cigarettes. The other discussion shows that there is WP:CON that the Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Medical_and_scientific_organizations including the CDC are reliable. QuackGuru (talk) 20:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Why are you first notifying us now? You posted that query 2 hours ago. As for the WP:MEDRS thread, it doesn't include specifics, and there is certainly no consensus that all CDC pages are reliable for all types of material. --Kim D. Petersen 20:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Possible source

Notes from the field: calls to poison centers for exposures to electronic cigarettes--United States, September 2010-February 2014. QuackGuru (talk) 07:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Link doesn't work, but from the title i'd say that it is a primary source. --Kim D. Petersen 08:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

And it is[22]. We need review articles to vet this kind of information, and put it into perspective. That is what WP:MEDRS is about. --Kim D. Petersen 08:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Primary source and it does not appear to be peer-reviewed. Not MEDRS.Mihaister (talk) 18:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of possible sources, this new study (primary source) is one of few longitudinal studies for e-cigarette use and concluded "Daily use of electronic cigarettes for at least one month is strongly associated with quitting smoking at follow up." Another is this one, which also found that "E-cigarettes may contribute to relapse prevention in former smokers and smoking cessation in current smokers." And, finally, this cohort study finding that "The use of NRT bought over the counter was associated with a lower odds of abstinence (odds ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.49-0.94)." Mihaister (talk) 19:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Ahem, sorry Mihaister, but that MMWR item was not a primary source. It was secondary, citing the primary source as its ref 5: Mowry JB, Spyker DA, Cantilena LR Jr, Bailey JE, Ford M. "2012 annual report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers' National Poison Data System (NPDS): 30th annual report". Clin Toxicol (Phila) 2013;51:949–1229. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Ref 5 noted above is a citation to a data source not a study. The actual MMWR item is the only study performed on those data, i.e. primary source. Mihaister (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not a press release. The report is definitely a secondary source. QuackGuru (talk) 04:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Ref 5 is nothing but data and how well the data center is doing, no conclusions on health issues. You cant review what isnt there. AlbinoFerret (talk) 06:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: PubMed disagrees: MeSH terms include "*statistics & numerical data" and PT is not "Review" [23] --Mihaister (talk) 06:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Your own reply points out why it isnt a primary source, ALL it contains is "statistics & numerical data" there are no discussions, conclusions or theories about health issues in it that use the data. AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course it is a primary source. A weekly newsletter that merely describes possible aspects of recent research is not in any way or form a secondary source. It doesn't provide "an overview of the current understanding of a medical topic, to make recommendations, or to combine the results of several studies." (WP:MEDRS). --Kim D. Petersen 12:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Think a bit about what you are saying... basically that would mean that press-releases on Eurekalert for instance would be secondary sources, or the summaries from journals that describe developments in the field. Do you really believe that? --Kim D. Petersen 12:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Let me quote the authors guide[24] for the Weekly reports that QG wants to use:

D. Notes from the Field

Notes from the Field are abbreviated reports intended to advise MMWR readers of ongoing or recent events of concern to the public health community, without waiting for development of a Full Report. Events of concern include epidemics/outbreaks, unusual disease clusters, poisonings, exposures to disease or disease agents (including environmental and toxic), and notable public health-related case reports. These reports may contain early unconfirmed information, preliminary results, hypotheses regarding risk factors and exposures, and other similarly incomplete information. No definitive conclusions need be presented in Notes from the Field.

That to me reads almost the very definition of a primary source in WP:MEDRS. If this can be used without caution, then i'm not sure why other sources are being rejected. This really should close the case for MMWR --Kim D. Petersen 21:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

New paragraph is a Copy of Grana

QuackGuru added a section to Second Hand Exposure. Every line referenced to Grana, almost half the paragraph if not more is a copyright violation. They are not rephrased but a word left out , or one or two changed making them derivative works. Here is a link to the diff. I dont have access to the other article, but if the editing patten repeats with it, they are likely to be a copyright problem also. AlbinoFerret (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC) They are also written to the wrong audience per WP:MEDMOS which states we are to write to the general reader, not the medical community. Copying sentences strait from a medical journal is an indication of who they were written to. AlbinoFerret (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

He also knows from previews talk threads that the Grana claim about particles being similar to cigarette particles is contradicted in another secondary review, and that other reviews consider them unlikely to be harmfull - but he's willfully ignoring that. Sigh again. Consensus be damned, and our guides of WP:WEIGHT (and thus NPOV) is just out the window. --Kim D. Petersen 21:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I feel like we're not getting thru to QG, as he continues to deflect all discussion and evidence submitted here and pursues massive and biased butchery of the article.. Perhaps it's time we considered administrative actions... Mihaister (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree I have spent tons of time going over this with him. Doc James even chimed in and told him not to do it. I have removed the copyright violations per WP:CV and I have placed a tag warning on his user page. AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Would one of you please check the other entries if you have access to the journals. A simple word search for one of the terms should bring up any matches. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

E-cigarettes do not produce side-stream smoke

I just added a sentence about e-cigarettes do not produce side-stream smoke. I think the sentence is non-controversial. Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 04:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

You need to change it or remove it until you do because of copyright issues From Grana "E-cigarettes do not burn or smolder the way conventional cigarettes do, so they do not emit side-stream smoke" your edit "E-cigarettes do not smolder tobacco, they do not put into the air side-stream smoke." it is a derivative work, you can see one sentence in the other one still. Its not paraphrased, rewrite it in your own words. You are putting Wikipedia at risk of a lawsuit. AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I just looked at the latest version, much better. AlbinoFerret (talk) 05:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

E-cigarettes do not produce any kind of smoke ([25]). The statement about "side-stream" is misleading and incomplete, implying that other kinds of smoke may be produced. Mihaister (talk) 05:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The source you provided says: "there is no equivalent to the “side-stream” component of exposure to conventional cigarettes, so all of the exposure to a bystander results from exhalation."[26]

This is what the article says: "Since e-cigarettes do not smolder tobacco, no side-stream smoke is emitted.[3] Only what is exhaled by electronic cigarettes users enters the surrounding air.[5]"

Not sure what the issue is when it is clear only what is exhaled is a source of exposure. QuackGuru (talk) 06:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Mentioning side stream smoke is an issue, it doesn't come from ecigarettes, so why include it? Simply mentioning that the only source is from the user is enough and less confusing. No general reader is going to know what side stream smoke is. The sentence reads like one from a medical journal, one of the pitfalls of addressing the wrong target audience. We are not writing for health professionals but the general reader WP:MEDMOS AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

We can just say they do not produce smoke. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I think your on the right track, the top half article is already reads like a medical journal, one of the pitfalls mentioned in WP:MEDMOS. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)