Talk:Health effects of electronic cigarettes

In-text attribution

Postgraduate Medical Journal

KimDabelsteinPetersen agreed the source is reliable to use if the text is attributed.[1] In-text attribution is a good compromise. QuackGuru (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

No, i most certainly did not. The full discussion was archived (too early apparently) here Talk:Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes/Archive_1#McKee_is_an_editorial. You cannot use Editorial/Opinion material in this way. Not by WP:MEDRS nor by the consensus reached in that discussion. --Kim D. Petersen 22:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The claims are mundane and most of the text is discussing what proponents said. It is a high quality WP:SECONDARY source. QuackGuru (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

It does not matter if the claims are mundane or not. You are A) Ignoring consensus B) ignoring WP:RS C) ignoring WP:MEDRS and finally D) It is a primary source not a secondary one (opinions always are!) --Kim D. Petersen 23:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

And it would be rather nice if you stopped claiming that i revert "blindly"[2], when it is quite obvious both why i revert, and that there is an already existing consensus, as well as policy, against using the McKee editorial. --Kim D. Petersen 23:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

You claim "It does not matter if the claims are mundane or not." But it does matter. This source is being used for claims such as the claims made by advocates. Claims by advocates are not subject to MEDRS. This source is not WP:Primary. Specifically, the claim is the "author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources" - the peer-reviewed journal has referenced 37 sources. I would very much like to see your argument that it is WP:Primary. QuackGuru (talk) 03:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Please stop flogging the dead horse and try instead to see if you can find consensus for the usage of this editorial. It doesn't matter if it is mundane or not - if consensus and policy is against using such a source, then you can't use that source. Lets say i'm wrong about the primary issue - would that change whether you could use the source or not? No, it wouldn't: You still need consensus and you still per WP:RS and WP:MEDRS can't use an opinion source for factual material no matter if the material is mundane or not. --Kim D. Petersen 17:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree, its unusable. Editorials are primary sources. They state the opinion of the writer, regardless of what they look at. AlbinoFerret 18:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I previously showed it is not a primary source and for non-MEDRS claims it does not need to be MEDRS.[3] Consensus is based on the arguments. So far no evidence has shown it is a primary. In fact, the evidence has shown it is a legitimate WP:SECONDARY source. For example, when there are 37 references the source cited it shows it is a secondary source. QuackGuru (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

You have not shown anything that convinced people. And why on earth do you think that if a source uses references then it is a primary source? I'm quite frankly shocked. --Kim D. Petersen 23:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

of course the above should have been "isn't a primary source", which should have been obvious from context. But apparently there are some who want to misunderstand - so i'll correct it by this post, instead of by editing, since it has already been commented upon --Kim D. Petersen 01:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is a primary source. See WP:Primary: Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. You have not provided any argument it is a primary while I have shown it is a secondary source. QuackGuru (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Does the word "Editorial" ring a bell? WP:MEDRS#Biomedical_journals second sentence might give you a clue. You keep trying to wiggle around the fact that it is an opinion article, which isn't acceptable material. Sorry. --Kim D. Petersen 01:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I tried to explain it to you before. For non-medical claims MEDRS is not applicable. QuackGuru (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

And i've repeated again and again: WP:RS. You can't use opinion articles for facts outside of medicine either! Opinions are opinions - they are not fact. --Kim D. Petersen 00:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

If you can't use an alternative source that is actually reliable for the "mundane [claims]" that you want to include ... then that really should tell you something. Could we now stop flogging the horse thats gone to meet its maker? --Kim D. Petersen 00:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

According to WP:SECONDARY it is perfectly acceptable to use secondary sources. This is not a questionable source. QuackGuru (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:IDHT much? --Kim D. Petersen 23:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Quack, No matter how you phrase it, no matter what angle you want to look at, its still an Editorial and is a questionable source. It is not suitable for this article. AlbinoFerret 23:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes we should stick with review articles not editorials. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Quack has brought this to WP:RSN Here is a link. He brought this there without mentioning this section, or informing the involved editors. AlbinoFerret 05:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

In-text attribution again

A policy statement from the American Association for Cancer Research and the American Society of Clinical Oncology

• Brandon, T. H.; Goniewicz, M. L.; Hanna, N. H.; Hatsukami, D. K.; Herbst, R. S.; Hobin, J. A.; Ostroff, J. S.; Shields, P. G.; Toll, B. A.; Tyne, C. A.; Viswanath, K.; Warren, G. W. (2015). "Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems: A Policy Statement from the American Association for Cancer Research and the American Society of Clinical Oncology". Clinical Cancer Research. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-2544. ISSN 1078-0432.

Nicotine is regarded as a possibly lethal toxin.[4] wad removed.

A policy statement by the American Association for Cancer Research and the American Society of Clinical Oncology has reported that "Third-hand exposure occurs when nicotine and other chemicals from second-hand aerosol deposit on surfaces, exposing people through touch, ingestion,and inhalation".[5] was removed.

I think the policy statement from the American Association for Cancer Research and the American Society of Clinical Oncology is reliable for these claims. QuackGuru (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The subject of the article is not "Nicotine". Unless you have a claim that nicotine, at the levels found in e-cigarettes, is "possibly a "lethal" toxin it is inappropriate to use in this article. There are lots of substances that can be lethal when taken in large quantities, even water. Using claims about nicotine at strengths above that found in e-cig's leads to original research by synthesis. when followed by claims about e-cigarettes. AlbinoFerret 20:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The subject of the article is not "propylene glycol". But nicotine and other ingredients are used in e-cigs. The authors believe nicotine is potentially toxic. QuackGuru (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

That is incorrect, and a reading comprehension issue. The first sentence of the paragraph you used for that claim is talking about nicotine as a chemical, in its pure form. As a chemical, yes it can be toxic if taken at higher doses. But a few lines down (in the linked to policy statement in #1) we find

"However, given the relatively low doses of nicotine that ENDS deliver.... serious overdose from ENDS aerosol inhalation is unlikely."

So you have introduced Original research by saying the nicotine in e-cigarettes is potentially lethal. I have tagged it.AlbinoFerret 20:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Additionally the discussion on WP:RSN brought up the weight issue in the section here link. I have placed that tag also. AlbinoFerret 17:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

One fix would be to provide the full context from the source: "Nicotine is a known potentially lethal toxin, and poisoning related to ENDS can occur by ingestion, inhalation, or absorption through the skin or eyes...[but] serious overdose from ENDS aerosol inhalation is unlikely. In contrast, the concentrated nicotine in ENDS solutions can be toxic if it is inadvertently ingested or absorbed through the skin" Cloudjpk (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I added more context from the source without adding the possible adverse effects and removed the tags. AlbinoFerret 23:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

You added text that was taken out of context. I fixed the OR. QuackGuru (talk) 05:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I added text from the same section of the source, there was no OR, and fixed the problems you introduced. AlbinoFerret 14:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

formaldehyde

Claims of exposure to chemicals, including formaldehyde are medical claims. This requires a WP:MEDRS secondary source like a review. I have removed a claim here that used a "Correspondence" or letter to the journal as a source.diff This is not a WP:MEDRS secondary source. AlbinoFerret

Environmental impact

There appears to be a problem with this section. While I am against removing relevant information. The section is about the environmental impact. Not marketing. Nor is it about the amount of cigarettes compared to one combustible cigarette. That is not on the environment. AlbinoFerret 16:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The marketing claims cited are about environmental impact; that's their relevance. The cigarettes compared material however is missing key context from the source: "energy and materials used for manufacturing" is the comparison. That should be fixed. Cloudjpk (talk) 17:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

That they are marketed as "green" is a marketing claim and has nothing to do with an impact on the environment. That would require something tied to an environmental impact. AlbinoFerret 17:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Nothing to do with? Nothing?

Seems to me a claim of foo has something to do with foo :) We don't confuse the two but they are related. I wouldn't say they had nothing to do with each other.

I trust we agree that the material comparing cigarette and cigarettes needs the context from the source. Shall I go ahead and fix that? Cloudjpk (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The source does not say "the number of times each cartridge can be recycled is unclear." It says "the prevalence of recycling is unclear", which does not have the same meaning. Why do you and Yobol keep changing it back to the incorrect wording? --InfiniteBratwurst (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@Cloudjpk, The problem is that its in a section on environmental impact. Its not in a marketing section, its off topic because it doesnt deal with an impact on the environment, but on sales. AlbinoFerret 18:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Also can someone tell me what useful information the reader gets from this sentence:

"A 2014 review stated that information is limited on energy and materials used for production to equate if e-cigarettes and traditional cigarettes are assessed on the basis of use."

--InfiniteBratwurst (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, it means what it says. Consider the difference between "here's how Ebola is transmitted" and "information is limited on how Ebola is transmitted". Stating what is and is not known can be useful. Cloudjpk (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Tell me what it means, in clear and simple English.--InfiniteBratwurst (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Quite frankly i don't understand it either. --Kim D. Petersen 11:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Your not making any sense with deleting the additions. QuackGuru (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I think your dumping of POV material is hurting the article. I think a POV header is appropriate. AlbinoFerret

You have not explained what is the specific issue. QuackGuru (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The whole article is one giant negative point of view problem. AlbinoFerret 23:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

You have not shown what is the specific issue. Please don't restore the tag. QuackGuru (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Removal of claim tied to a press release

Press releases are not suitable for medical claims. I have removed it diff Here is a link to the source, clearly labled a press release at the top. link Lately we have had a dumping of what should be on the positions page being added. This has to stop. AlbinoFerret 23:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Statements about safety belong on this page. The World Lung Foundation is an expert on the topic. QuackGuru (talk) 23:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Its a press release being used to make a medical claim, the source is not a policy statement, its not a review, its a press release and unsuitable for that use. AlbinoFerret 23:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

A press release from the World Lung Foundation is a reliable source to cite for establishing what the World Lung Foundation itself said. See, for example, WP:SELFSOURCE. It may not be a good source for establishing whether what it said is correct or not, but it's a good source for establishing what it said. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

If this were the Positions of medical organizations on electronic cigarettes article (another daughter page of Electronic cigarette), it possibly might be used for that purpose. But this is a medical page and its use is to make a medical claim. For that the source (press release) is not reliable. WP:MEDPRI AlbinoFerret 02:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#World_Lung_Foundation. This is reliable material deleted for no good reason. See Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Medical_and_scientific_organizations. QuackGuru (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Those links do not address press releases, WP:MEDPRI does. AlbinoFerret 02:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

A statement from an organisation is not an individual primary source. QuackGuru (talk) 02:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Its still a press release, not a peer reviewed medical review in a journal. AlbinoFerret 02:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with citing a press release to establish, as fact, that the organization that issued the press release said what it said in the press release. That's fine. I don't see anything in WP:MEDPRI that says a press release can't be cited in such a manner, and if we find such a statement there, we should change it. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

There is when making a medical claim. It isnt the same standard as a non medical claim. WP:MEDRSAlbinoFerret 03:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

"Statements and information from reputable major medical and scientific bodies may be valuable encyclopedic sources." according to WP:MEDRS. The World Lung Foundation is an expert organisation for this.

"WLF provides financial and technical assistance to governments and non-government organizations in four priority areas: Health Communications and Information, Capacity Building, Project Management, and Operational Research. These projects are in the following lung health areas: tobacco control, asthma, and tuberculosis. The organization also works on maternal health initiatives." Read World Lung Foundation. QuackGuru (talk) 03:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter. A press-release is not a sufficient source to reach review article level, which is the consensus requirement for medical material added to e-cigarette articles. --Kim D. Petersen 07:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@BarrelProof: per long standing consensus, the lower level for reliability for adding medical claims to electronic cigarette articles, is that they are review level material per WP:MEDRS. And a press-release does not even remotely reach that level of reliability. --Kim D. Petersen 07:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no long standing consensus to ignore MEDRS. The exact same source is already used on another e-cigarette article. QuackGuru (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm completely at loss at how you could understand my comment as one of ignoring MEDRS, when i specifically noted that the consensus was for a strict reliance on MEDRS. Medical claims need MEDRS compliant review material! --Kim D. Petersen 12:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The other page, Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes, does not use it to make a medical claim, it is not a medical page. This page is a medical page and you are trying to make a medical claim. It is a press release, and by long standing consensus you cant use a press release to make medical medical claims. AlbinoFerret 21:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

We are only trying to claim what the World Lung Foundation's statement is, so it's plenty reliable. We usually don't use press releases because they don't have the expertise to reliably report on studies, but they're perfectly fine for stating what an organization said. This is what we'd be searching for in terms of a statement from an organisation. QuackGuru (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

You do not have consensus (your going against long held consensus at that) to use press releases, regardless of the reason, to source medical claims. This is a medical page, the claims your adding are medical. AlbinoFerret 01:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

To include medical information, we need to use WP:MEDRS compliant sources, which include statements by major medical organizations. This source clears that MEDRS bar, and is reliable for use for medical information, especially when in-text attributed to that organization. Suggestions that statements by medical organizations do not meed MEDRS are simply hogwash. Yobol (talk) 01:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Tertiary sources such as policy and statements from organizations are not MEDRS compliant secondary material. You should use the underlying secondary material. There is an entire page dedicated to such material. --Kim D. Petersen 12:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It is ling standing consensus that sources that make medical claims must be a review, perhaps a formal policy statement would work. Not a press release, not a policy page, ect. AlbinoFerret 01:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

You can't just make up your own "long standing consensus" of what to use. We already have consensus on what medical sources to use, it's called WP:MEDRS, and position statements by medical organizations meets MEDRS. Yobol (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Formal policy statements in peer reviewed medical journals, not press releases, or pages hidden in a website. For a position on the Positions page they might be used, but not to make medical claims. AlbinoFerret 02:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

You're just making up your own personal criteria now, that is not found anywhere in WP:MEDRS. You don't get to personally decide on stricter criteria for what is MEDRS compliant for everyone else on Wikipedia. Yobol (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

No, this has been long standing on e-cig pages. Press releases do not have consensus to be used for medical claims. AlbinoFerret 02:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I've been editing the e-cig pages longer than you have, and I know of no such "consensus". Stop trying to make up your own rules. Yobol (talk) 02:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

A medical claim must be sourced by a WP:MEDRS review. Press releases are not possible, and regardless what you think, this one doesnt even have consensus to be used. AlbinoFerret 02:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

And since we're at the point where you're repeating yourself, I bid you a good day, and offer a reminder that I will continue to restore properly sourced MEDRS compliant material such as positions of major medical organizations if they are wrongly removed. Cheers. Yobol (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Daughter pages are still part of the main one, which page do you want the World Medical Association position on? AlbinoFerret 02:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@Yobol: So you are stating that you will ignore consensus? Nice WP:BATTLEFIELD language there ("i will continue to restore..."). Do i need to find all of the times on Talk:Electronic cigarette where the requirement for WP:MEDRS review material for medical claims is stated - by the WP:MED people?

Am i now to understand that the requirement is something like "it must be review material, except when the material says something that we like"? --Kim D. Petersen 12:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, you all are making up your own rules and "consensus" again. The only point I have ever made is that material about health needs to be sourced to MEDRS compliant sources. Statements by major medical organizations meet MEDRS. Yobol (talk) 13:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Original research

Is this original research?.[6][7][8] QuackGuru (talk) 01:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

No, there is a conflict of interest section in that source that details the COI. AlbinoFerret 02:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Please provide verification. QuackGuru (talk) 02:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Read the source, Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest page OF10. Not only did the authors receive funding, they are on the boards of pharma companies.. AlbinoFerret 02:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

where funding from companies woes products compete against e-cigarettes was given to some of the authors is not how to write text for articles on Wikipedia. Who cares whether they have a COI. QuackGuru (talk) 02:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Your point about something that isnt in the article is? I think its a clear COI, not just about funding, they are on the board of directors of companies whoes products compete with e-cigs. AlbinoFerret 02:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's original research, but it sure seems over-the-top. Perhaps a better description than WP:OR would be WP:UNDUE, or WP:FRINGE (in emphasis), perhaps WP:POINTy, WP:EDITORIALIZING, WP:ALLEGED, or trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, using a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE to sneak in an editor's POV rather than simply reporting what well-accepted reliable sources say. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The source itself, published in a peer reviewed journal, made the claims. In a section about COI. I think your links are not applicable. Its not in the article, so your point is? AlbinoFerret 20:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Right. It was from the source itself. That's why I said it's not original research. My point is that there are reasons why it shouldn't be in the article even if it's not original research. Since it's not in the article now, as you point out, I'm happy. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Where does Drummond say this?

Recent edit cites Drummond for "Aerosol particle concentration is 5 times lower than a cigarette". I'm sorry, I'm not seeing where he says this. Where is it please? Cloudjpk (talk) 03:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

p238, third column top: Similarly, the mean aerosol particle concentration was higher with exhaled e-cigarette vapor compared with background exposure, but fivefold lower than conventional cigarette use. There was no measurable difference between background and e-cigarette volatile organic compounds --Kim D. Petersen 07:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Much thanks! Cloudjpk (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)