Talk:Health effects of electronic cigarettes/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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)

No, i'm most certainly not making up rules. And you really should get consensus before reverting in material. reliability or verifiability does not infer inclusion. Statements by major medical organizations are WP:TERTIARY, not secondary - or review material. --Kim D. Petersen 13:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Use secondary review WP:MEDRS material for medical statements please. Not opinions, primary or tertiary material. --Kim D. Petersen 13:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Not to mention of course that the text is also outdated nonsense. At this point in time there are studies of the carcinogenic (or lack thereof) properties of vapor. Why anyone would add such material, when they know that it is wrong, is beyond me.--Kim D. Petersen 13:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Replacement of this press release is without consensus. AlbinoFerret 00:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Italian study on effects of reduced cigarettes and dual use.

I don't have a lot of time for editing right now but thought that this Italian study I caught on PubMed will likely have useful information as it directly looked at the risk reduction for known smoking related diseases in dual users of e-cigarettes and traditional cigarettes. I only have the abstract but the conclusion is interesting.

Therefore, in order to achieve significant risk reductions, e-cig users should quit smoking as first choice, or, if they feel it is impossible to them, reduce the consumption of traditional cigarettes to less than 5 cig/day.

SPACKlick (talk) 09:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

this review finds light and intermittent smoking carry nearly the same heart disease risk as daily smoking, and a substantial risk for cancer, with no evidence of a threshold. Overall, the Italian study agrees pretty well with the rest of the literature. If a device enables quitting smoking, it delivers substantial health benefits. If a device merely enables smoking less, not so much. Cloudjpk (talk) 18:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

That review was written by a mechanical engineer.--InfiniteBratwurst (talk) 14:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but despite your phrasing, the review still finds that light/intermittant smoking is safer than heavy smoking. To take an example: Chance for dying of lung cancer Heavy smoker(male 20/day): >23 times higher than a non-smoker. Light smoker (male 1-4/day): 3 times higher risk than a non-smoker.

Yes, as you point out, even for lung cancer, light smoking is 300% more deadly for lung cancer alone. Now add in the heart disease, where light smoking carries nearly the same risk as heavy smoking; heart disease is about half of all tobacco deaths. Yes, there are different ways to phrase this; one is: the dose-response curve is highly nonlinear. Another is: cutting down but not quitting does not greatly reduce risk. Cloudjpk (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I think this is rather symptomatic when we are talking risks in general: The quantification is important. But unfortunately editors are rather more focused on finding tid-bits that can seem dangerous. 'tis actually quite simple: If you are a non-smoker... don't use e-cigs. If your are a smoker... then you most certainly should either quit completely (best) or try e-cigs (better than not). --Kim D. Petersen 22:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The risk distinction isn't whether e-cigs are added but whether cigs are subtracted :) Quitting smoking substantially reduces risk. Using e-cigs and quitting smoking substantially reduces risk, even if e-cig use continues. Using e-cigs and continued smoking does not substantially reduce risk, even if it's light smoking Cloudjpk (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Also of note is this study on mice showing a reduced clearance of infection in mice exposed to e-cig vapor as well as measuring free radical contents of vapor. It seems a very robustly designed study on Njoy Bold e-cigarettes. SPACKlick (talk) 09:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, very interesting that the only adverse effect it found was a known issue specific to mice and that free radical levels were three orders of magnitude lower than cigarettes.--InfiniteBratwurst (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Still it's a reliable source which has definite conclusions rather than speculation. There will be an RS to temper it specifying that this effect is likely due to a specific interaction of Nicotine in murids rather than an effect of e-cigs. But it's better than the blind speculation that forms most of this article. SPACKlick (talk) 17:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Both of them are unfortunately primary sources, so we'll need to wait for reviews that use 'em :) --Kim D. Petersen 22:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Removal of sales claim

Sales are not a safety issue. Sales are economic and are off topic for this page. AlbinoFerret 15:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a marketing claim that relates directly to environmental impact. So I could see it in either place. Thus I have no problem placing it in the Economics section with appropriate link to here. Cloudjpk (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Note

• Metzger, Dennis W; Sussan, Thomas E.; Gajghate, Sachin; Thimmulappa, Rajesh K.; Ma, Jinfang; Kim, Jung-Hyun; Sudini, Kuladeep; Consolini, Nicola; Cormier, Stephania A.; Lomnicki, Slawo; Hasan, Farhana; Pekosz, Andrew; Biswal, Shyam (2015). "Exposure to Electronic Cigarettes Impairs Pulmonary Anti-Bacterial and Anti-Viral Defenses in a Mouse Model". PLOS ONE. 10 (2): e0116861. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0116861. ISSN 1932-6203. PMID 25651083.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

E-Cigarette Exposure Impairs Immune Responses in Mouse Model, Johns Hopkins-Led Research Finds. "In a study with mice, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health researchers have found that e-cigarettes compromise the immune system in the lungs and generate some of the same potentially dangerous chemicals found in traditional nicotine cigarettes."[1] Search for a review. QuackGuru (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Here is a addition to your note WP:MEDANIMAL. AlbinoFerret 03:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Already mentioned in an above section. In addition to AlbinoFerrets comment: It is a primary source, and thus not usable. --Kim D. Petersen 03:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

In-text attribution

Postgraduate Medical Journal

KimDabelsteinPetersen agreed the source is reliable to use if the text is attributed.[2] 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"[3], 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.[4] 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.[5] 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".[6] 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)

There was OR because the text did not accurately summarise the source. You claimed you fixed the problems I introduced. But I fixed the wording and you moved the text to the wrong place out of context. QuackGuru (talk) 01:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret thinks the Policy Statement from the American Association for Cancer Research and the American Society of Clinical Oncology is unreliable.[7] QuackGuru (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Yet another mistreatment, That was removed because of weight and original research by synthesis. AlbinoFerret 02:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

You moved the text to the wrong place that created the original research by synthesis. QuackGuru (talk) 02:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Nope. AlbinoFerret 02:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

That is not an argument. You are continuing to delete sources that are reliable and are relevant. QuackGuru (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Neither is yours. i'm sorry to say. "reliable and relevant" is not an argument - it is an assertion. And the WP:ONUS is on the one wanting to add information. --Kim D. Petersen 19:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

In-text attribution again 2

World Lung Foundation

Another reliable source was deleted.[8] QuackGuru (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:ONUS Reliability does not guarantee inclusion. In this case the source was not a WP:MEDRS review and was unsuitable to make medical claims by long standing precedent and consensus. That does not imply that I believe a press release is a reliable source, and this source is a press release. AlbinoFerret 02:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The source is reliable. It is backing up a medical claim. See Electronic cigarette#Health effects. "The World Lung Foundation applauded the 2014 WHO report's recommendation for tighter regulation of e-cigarettes due to concerns about the safety of e-cigarettes and the possible increased nicotine or tobacco addiction among youth.[70]" QuackGuru (talk) 02:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Which is in the section of Electronic cigarette that summarizes the article Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes. It is reliable in that context - but here it is a tertiary source, and tertiary sources shouldn't be used - instead you should rely on the secondary sources that the tertiary source uses to derive its position. Reliability is contextual. --Kim D. Petersen 02:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

It is reliable in that context for a medical claim. Same here. See Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Medical_and_scientific_organizations. QuackGuru (talk) 03:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Tertiary sources are not reliable in this context. Do note how that section notes that these kinds of sources "may be valuable" not that they are automagically reliable as you seem to indicate. --Kim D. Petersen 03:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

"The reliability of these sources range from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals, through public guides and service announcements,..." See Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Medical_and_scientific_organizations. Even "service announcements" from reputable organisations are reliable. QuackGuru (talk) 16:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

A position statement is a tertiary source, not a secondary. And while scientific reports from such organizations can reach the level of formal reviews, the rest aren't, and this one isn't. Finally "Service announcements" are not reliable to the level of secondary reviews. Context matters, and reliability is contextual. --Kim D. Petersen 17:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

You claim a position statement is unreliable and "service announcements" are not reliable. Your argument is against MEDRS because MEDRS states "The reliability of these sources range from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals, through public guides and service announcements,..." I explained this before that even "service announcements" are reliable according to MEDRS for organisations. QuackGuru (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a problem, to state a medical claim you need a review. This press release is not a reliable source for this article and the way you want to use it. Reliability, in some form does not guarantee inclusion in an article. WP:ONUS. Your repeated rephrasing, and trying to put words into the mouths of other editors by mischaracterizing what has been posted here is not going to change the facts that its a press release. AlbinoFerret 17:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Could you please stop strawmanning? I've never said that it was unreliable - but that within this particular context it is a tertiary source, and thus not usable. I'll repeat it again: Tertiary sources are not acceptable as WP:MEDRS in this context. We need secondary review articles. --Kim D. Petersen 17:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret claims "This is a problem, to state a medical claim you need a review." This is a false. Organisations such as this one are reliable. Another organisation you deleted is also reliable. You have a pattern of deleting organisations and then claiming on the talk page the source must be a "review".

Kim D. Petersen, you claimed "We need secondary review articles." So you are claiming the source is unreliable. But to state a medical claim you do not need a secondary review according to Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Medical_and_scientific_organizations. QuackGuru (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

You just dont get it, or hear it WP:IDHT. Reliability is just one factor in inclusion. Sources can be reliable for some things and not for others. A press release is not suitable for making a medical claim, a medical review is whats needed. AlbinoFerret 17:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

A medical review is not the inclusion criteria according to Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Medical_and_scientific_organizations. QuackGuru (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Per that link "The reliability of these sources range from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals, through public guides and service announcements, which have the advantage of being freely readable, but are generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature. This source is no way on par with a review, its a press release, not a formal report. Press releases are not even mentioned. You are misrepresenting that section, and mischaracterizing what the source is. AlbinoFerret 18:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

MEDRS does not state that only medical reviews are reliable. The source does not have to be on par with a review according to Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Medical_and_scientific_organizations. QuackGuru (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

You may want to read WP:MEDRS#Definitions for the difference between primary,secondary and tertiary sources. And the rationale for not using tertiary sources. It would be rather nice if you'd figure out that we are talking about tertiary vs. secondary - instead of the simplistic reliable or not. --Kim D. Petersen 18:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC) (and of course you once more ignore that there is a general consensus on only using secondary review MEDRS sources for medical information on electronic cigarette articles --Kim D. Petersen 18:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC))

The WP:MEDRS#Definitions is not about the organisations. To determine the reliability for organisations we have the section Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Medical_and_scientific_organizations. The general consensus is not to use solely secondary reviews. For example, AlbinoFerret tried to delete a reliable source because it was not a "review". But that was against consensus to delete the organisation. QuackGuru (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

That was a formal policy statement in a peer reviewed journal, not a press release. You still have not addressed this as a tertiary source. AlbinoFerret 18:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

That was a formal policy statement in a peer reviewed journal and yet you still tried to delete it. A service announcement from a reputable organisation is reliable according to Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Medical_and_scientific_organizations. A service announcement from a reputable organisation is a much weaker source than a tertiary source from a reputable organisation yet it is still reliable. QuackGuru (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

This is off topic for this section, but the source that was removed had other issues, including COI and Original research by syntheses. The reliability of that source is compromized by the fact the writers accepted funding and serve on the board of directors of pharmaceutical companies. I still think it should be removed but it seems others are disregarding the facts and replace it. The source in question in this section is a tertiary source, and is not included in the section you continue to link to, it is a failed argument that you continue not to hear. It is "generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature." less than a review, less than even a study, which cant be used either. AlbinoFerret 19:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

"The reliability of these sources range from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals, through public guides and service announcements, which have the advantage of being freely readable, but are generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature." This source does not need to be on par with a review according to Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Medical_and_scientific_organizations. QuackGuru (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

According to consensus on e-cig articles it does need to be a review to make a medical claim. The quote even questions its usage. It says those sources "can" and not "they are" they vary from those equalling a review to those not. Those formal policy statements may be used, they may not per WP:ONUS, the lesser tertiary sources should not be used to make some claims, like medical claims. Now before any other topic address this as a tertiary source. This is going round in circles and you are avoiding a direct question. AlbinoFerret 19:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

You want to ignore WP:MEDRS and now go with WP:ONUS for any source that is not a "review". Because organisations are not always on par with reviews does not make them not usable according to MEDRS. You need to address this as a reliable source like other reputable organisations. You should stop suggesting the general consensus is to only use "reviews". QuackGuru (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Now before any other topic address this as a tertiary source. This is going round in circles and you are avoiding a direct question. AlbinoFerret 21:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

A tertiary source is irrelevant to Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Medical_and_scientific_organizations to determine if an organisation is reliable. In any event, a service announcement from a reputable organisation is by far less reliable than a tertiary source from a reputable organisation and we know a service announcement from a reputable organisation is reliable. A position statement is typically a tertiary source, and you are suggesting that all position statements are unreliable. But there is an article called Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes. QuackGuru (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Are you serious? You may want to look up how tertiary sources, no matter their reliability should be used in Wikipedia WP:Tertiary. I'm not in the mood of following you down the strawman argument of what kind of tertiary source is more reliable than another tertiary source - since we shouldn't be using tertiary sources in the first place. --Kim D. Petersen 21:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

This is not what kind of tertiary source is more reliable than another tertiary source. That is irrelevant to the discussion. We are discussing Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Medical_and_scientific_organizations. If you think all using tertiary sources can't be used in the first place then you will have no problem redirecting the Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes page to the main e-cig page. QuackGuru (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Quack, you either are not understanding this issue, its a reading comprehension issue, or your just not hearing what has been said. Here it is boiled down. Sources are reliable for some things and not others. Sources can be reliable for one thing and not another. The source you are trying to use is perfectly acceptable for a position statement of an organization on a non medical page like Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes. Just like a medical source isnt appropriate on the Legal page. But it is not a review quality source. It is not reliable on e-cig articles to make medical claims. You keep going back to reliability, but reliability isnt black or white, but shades. The NY Times is reliable, but I cant use it to make medical claims. A study may be in a reliable source, but I cant use the source to make medical claims. A medical source may be reliable, but I cant use it on the Legal page to make regulatory statements. This continued arguing about reliability as if its black or white, or the sole deciding factor in inclusion is wrong. WP:ONUS "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. " We have spent enough time on this to help you understand. I have assumed good faith, but I am starting to wonder if there are other motivations at play here. AlbinoFerret 22:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The source does not need to be "a review quality source" according to Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Medical_and_scientific_organizations. QuackGuru (talk) 22:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

By consensus, yes it does. WP:ONUS, "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. " AlbinoFerret 23:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Since you do not want to address the real issue of context, and the tertiary nature of the source, it can be safely stated that WP:Silence does not apply to further arguments of this kind from your side. You are beating the dead horse. And further repeatition of "but it is a reliable source" from now on, is just going to be even more disruptive behaviour from your side. --Kim D. Petersen 23:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion is about MEDRS in reference to whether the source is reliable. ONUS is about V. These are two different things. You are both arguing the source is unreliable because it is not a review. But MEDRS never says for reputable organisations the source must be a review. I did address the tertiary nature of the source. A statement from reputable organisation can be a tertiary source or less than a tertiary source and still be reliable according to Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Medical_and_scientific_organizations. For example, I previously explained that even a service announcement from reputable organization is reliable according to Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes. That is the reason there is an article with lots of tertiary sources making medical claims at Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes. Since you both have not shown how this reputable organization is unreliable you should respect MEDRS. Suggesting that ONUS should trump MEDRS when the source is reliable is not productive, especially without a specific reason to what is the issue with the text. Is the real issue you both don't seem to like what the source is stating? Is there any position statement from a reputable organization you will acknowledge as reliable and usable? Do you understand this source does not need to be on par with a review to be reliable and usable? QuackGuru (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

This whole section has me wondering about your WP:COMPETENCE to edit WP. You cant split WP:RS and and WP:VER. WP:VER and WP:RS are two sides of the same coin. I suggest you read WP:VER and notice that they both use the same noticeboard and that reliability is covered on that page. You cant have a reliable source if it isnt verifiable. WP:VER is a core policy WP:CCPOL that WP:RS falls under.

You dont seem to understand the difference in how different types of sources can be used. You point to one page that has a different point of view on the topic and expect because a source can be used there it can be used everywhere. It cant, thats why WP:ONUS exists, its part of the WP:VER page, a core policy, you cant disregard it. We have tried and tried to explain it to you. But you keep going round in circles. This isnt the first time this has come up on your part,it also came up on the Legal page. Its starting to look like a pattern. You are missing the fine details and in the process you are trying to force a square peg into a round hole, and I have to question the motive behind that. Reliability does not guarantee inclusion. What can be used on one page may not be suitable for another, per WP:ONUS "Consensus may determine that certain information.... or presented instead in a different article." You are beating the dead horse and this is becoming disruptive behaviour from your side. AlbinoFerret 17:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

You are disregarding MEDRS and now suggesting that ONUS trumps MEDRS. The discussion is about reliability not ONUS. Do you have a pattern of ignoring MEDRS? QuackGuru (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

You cant split WP:RS and and WP:VER, WP:VER is a core policy WP:CCPOL that WP:RS falls under, WP:MEDRS is under WP:RS. Again fine points you are missing. WP:ONUS is part of the core policy page WP:VER. Its the highest level of policy. AlbinoFerret 17:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Now you are suggesting that WP:VER trumps WP:MEDRS but for specific medical claims the guideline is WP:MEDRS. See WP:RS/MC: "Ideal sources for biomedical assertions include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies." The details are at WP:MEDRS. QuackGuru (talk) 17:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

You have wasted enough of my time. Per Kim "it can be safely stated that WP:Silence does not apply to further arguments of this kind from your side." You do not have consensus for any of the edits in this section. AlbinoFerret 18:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Please read the comments by User:Yobol.[9] Yobol stated "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."[10] "Again, you all are making up your own rules and "consensus" again."[11] See Talk:Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes/Archive_1#Removal_of_claim_tied_to_a_press_release. QuackGuru (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

In-text attribution again 3

World Medical Association

Both AlbinoFerret[12] and KimDabelsteinPetersen [13][14] deleted a reliable source. QuackGuru (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:ONUS Reliability does not guarantee inclusion. In this case the source was not a WP:MEDRS review and was unsuitable to make medical claims by long standing precedent and consensus. AlbinoFerret 01:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

You deleted this source too but the source is reliable. There is a long standing precedent and consensus that these types of organisations are reliable. See Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes page for lots of reliable sources. QuackGuru (talk) 02:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Just like above - this is a tertiary source. Use secondary sources per WP:MEDRS. --Kim D. Petersen 02:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret claims "Remove WMA statement that is not a review and makes a medical claim. Per long standing agreement on e-cig pages medical claims must be sourced to a WP:MEDRS review".[15] However, the "source is MEDRS compliant".[16]. There is no long standing agreement on e-cig pages medical claims must be sourced to a "review". Editors should not make up there own rules and "consensus" again.[17] QuackGuru (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Questionable source

There is a claim on the page tied to http://www.bignewsnetwork.com. I can find no mention of editorial oversight on this site. In fact the about page says "We do not have a research team". AlbinoFerret 01:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I placed this section, when I placed a tag, that CFCF removed. I am replacing the tag as well. AlbinoFerret 22:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Now that there are better sources available we don't need this one. QuackGuru (talk) 23:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Your mammoth edit is not a product of consensus. You made a large change without any discussion whatsoever. AlbinoFerret 23:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I deleted the source you tagged. QuackGuru (talk) 23:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

New review

A paper has just been published about e-cigs in the American Journal of Medicine. It's titled Electronic cigarettes-a narrative review for clinicians. Seems like a good source to use. It says that "Although there are some reports of improved cessation in a subset of users, there are also studies reporting decreased cessation in dual users of regular and e-cigarettes." Everymorning talk 14:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The quote above is about cessation. But there is other info about safety from the source. I already added it to my sandbox. QuackGuru (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Page protection

I've protected this page (fully) for 7 days. I seriously contemplated simply blocking the 3-4 edit warriors but thought we could go this route to encourage continued discussion. If the edit warring continues post-protection, other methods may be used. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret is continuing to delete reliable sources from position statements from reputable organisations. AlbinoFerret also deleted a number of sources including reviews without a specific objection on the talk page. See Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettes#Positions. Most editors disagree with AlbinoFerret at the RfC. See WP:SNOW. User:Bbb23 blocked AlbinoFerret for violating the three-revert rule at the Safety of electronic cigarettes page.[18]

AlbinoFerret claims "Reliability does not guarantee inclusion."[19] But AlbinoFerret has not given a specific reason for excluding relevant information about safety. AlbinoFerret has turned the page into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. AlbinoFerret is continuing to delete reliable sources.[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27] See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive864#User:AlbinoFerret for background information. QuackGuru (talk) 22:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

You have ignored discussion of a massive edit, and just revert it in. per WP:CAUTIOUS major edits should be discussed. AlbinoFerret 22:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

No, as detailed above you have quietly gone about building a 20,000 odd character edit alone for a couple of weeks, gone ahead and inserted it without so much as notification on the talk page let alone discussion or any attempt to reach consensus. And then when this conduct is brought into question, elected to try and deflect the blame with personal attacks against another editor on the article talk page.Levelledout (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• I don't have this article on my watchlist, but I was pinged twice by QuackGuru, so I thought I'd make a brief comment. I endorse Rjd0060's protection and his threat of blocks if the edit-warring continues after protection expires.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• User:AlbinoFerret claims "You have not discussed one edit in the 19k characters you inserted."[28] But I did discuss sources User:AlbinoFerret deleted.[29] The response was "Reliability does not guarantee inclusion."[30] That is not a specific objection for excluding relevant information. User:AlbinoFerret is not here to improve this page IMO. How is deleting numerous reliable sources improving this page? QuackGuru (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

You never brought up specific edits for discussion. You did discuss sources related to the RFC, but never the edits. AlbinoFerret 23:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Electronic cigarettes appear to be so incredibly controversial that protection has had to move down to the subpages with the main article being fully protected for months. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Which makes it all the more contentious to make massive edits without discussion - doesn't it? --Kim D. Petersen 05:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that despite strong interest in the content and keeping well abreast of the developing scientific opinion on this topic I stopped editing any e-cigarette related page pretty much entirely because QuackGuru's behaviour in editing made it too draining to bother. Yes AF has strong opinions and if left unchecked by community consensus would probably result in a page with questionable NPOV status but he always discusses his edits, always invites argument and always responds to the argument presented. QG on the other hand has an opinion of what these articles should look like that in totam is divergent from consensus and just tries to steamroller changes in. Long term protection seems to be the only way to encourage QG to discuss things and even then he just repeats his "I didn't hear that" at every objection. What all the e-cig pages need is a massive haircut but it won't happen while QG can edit because either QG will add massive amounts of repetition or AF will feel NPOV being violated by imbalanced edits and re-instate positions. Sorry, mostly just venting here. SPACKlick (talk) 14:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, welcome to the club. There are a dozen or more editors here that have long ago given up any effort to keep this article reflective of the consensus of reliable sources because of the presence of e-cigarette advocates who sit on the article 10 hours a day and make it impossible for anyone not willing to do the same to have an impact. The problem is only exacerbated by canvassing for additional such advocates on other websites. Formerly 98 (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I ask you politely to please refrain from using terms like "e-cigarette advocate" as it is derogatory in this context and only inflames the situation. Also remember that it takes two to tango and that the likes of QG are most definitely not on the "e-cigarette advocate" side.Levelledout (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

If you have any evidence of canvassing bring it to the relevant WP boards. I'm not saying that advocates are vociferous on these articles but I disagree that they've had anything like the anti-consensus impact you're implying. However I don't want to rehash the old arguments again. SPACKlick (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

crickets.... --Kim D. Petersen 07:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Yup we have had some blocks due to paid editing / canvassing. Evidence of these sorts of activities is hard to verify. Thus best to stick to what the best quality sources say. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Search for review

A Florida man is recovering at a local burn center after suffering severe injuries from an electric cigarette that exploded in his mouth. QuackGuru (talk) 20:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

That is way too anecdotal to take seriously in my opinion, primarily because I can't find any reports of other ecig-related injuries at all. It's just another of the occasional lithium battery explosions which are commonplace because high density lithium cells have become so ubiquitous and cheaply manufactured. Cell phone and laptop users get much worse of the same. EllenCT (talk) 21:57, 5 March 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

I'm uncomfortable with this. I would rather that the MEDRS guideline be used to err on the side of caution than exclude such warnings, even if they are based on brand new research. EllenCT (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Letters to a publication are never good enough for medical claims. The study on which it is based is flawed. It used a modern adjustable power source, and an old style atomizer with known wicking problems. Then they ran the battery at voltages never contemplated with the atomizer. This produced not vapor, but combustion. Dr Farsalinos, a known expert on ecigs has already spoken on this topic. AlbinoFerret 00:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree, seeing the cause now. How disappointing that the anti-ecig faction has attempted to use such nonsense. Thank you. EllenCT (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?linkname=pubmed_pubmed_reviews&from_uid=25607446 Click here for a review in the future. QuackGuru (talk) 02:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Why in the world would you search for flawed research? AlbinoFerret 02:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?linkname=pubmed_pubmed_reviews&from_uid=25607446 When you click on the link you can find this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24732161 This is not flawed info on formaldehyde. QuackGuru (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Then the search is off topic for the discussion, which was on a letter to a journal on a flawed study. Said study is at the top of your search. AlbinoFerret 21:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Your not getting it. The search is for content about formaldehyde. This is on topic. QuackGuru (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no mention of formaldehyde in [31]. Why are you linking to it here? EllenCT (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25353061 I meant this review. QuackGuru (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that presents a solid argument against adjustable voltage ecigs, and should be included discussing those models. But I hope you agree that "in most cases, the levels are lower than those in tobacco cigarette smoke" is a rather essential part of the Conclusion. EllenCT (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to add about the "adjustable voltage ecigs". QuackGuru (talk) 22:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

"The compositions and concentrations of these compounds vary depending on the type of e-liquid and the battery voltage.... carbonyl compounds were incidentally generated by touching the nichrome wire with e-liquid and increasing the battery output voltage.... Furthermore, battery output voltage affects the concentration of the carbonyl compounds in the emission.... Kosmider et al. showed that increasing the voltage from 3.2–4.8 V resulted in a 4 to >200 times increase in the formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and acetone levels.... battery output voltage significantly [affected] the concentration of carbonyl compounds in the e-cigarette aerosol. As such, high-voltage e-cigarettes may expose users to high levels of carbonyl compounds.... The amounts of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde in e-cigarette aerosols at a lower voltage were on average 13 and 807-fold lower than those in traditional cigarette smoke, respectively." EllenCT (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Done adding it to my sandbox. QuackGuru (talk) 17:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

"A 2014 systematic review concluded that the risks of e-cigarettes have been exaggerated by health authorities and stated that it is apparent that there may be some remaining risk accompanied with e-cigarette use, though the risk of e-cigarette use is likely small compared to smoking tobacco.[7]" It is in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

"Risk ... is likely small" doesn't correctly reflect "by far less harmful". Nor is there any representation of "significant health benefits are expected in smokers who switch." EllenCT (talk) 15:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The part "is likely small" is summarising a different part of the source. The part "significant health benefits are expected in smokers who switch" is probably a better fit for Electronic cigarette#Harm reduction. I will try to summarise the part "by far less harmful" in the body. QuackGuru (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm done with adding the part "by far less harmful" to my sandbox. I rewrote the text and added in-text attribution. QuackGuru (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

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

So speculation (nonsmokers might) override real things (much less harm)? --Kim D. Petersen 18:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

We have high quality refs that say both which is why we summarize as we have. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

"High quality" speculation is still just speculation.--InfiniteBratwurst (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

No, the sources with which you agree are summarized accurately, and you are trying to keep the sources with which you disagree from being summarized correctly. Has it occurred to you that someone in your position should be held to a higher standard of impartiality than ordinary editors? EllenCT (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The source says toxicants

The source says "The levels of toxicants..."[32] A synonym for toxicants is chemical constituents. QuackGuru (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. There is no scientific definition of what a "chemical constituent" even is (as everything is made of chemicals), let alone agreement that "chemical constituents" is a synonym for toxicant. Formerly 98 (talk) 02:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The paragraph is titled "Chemical Constituents".[33] Then they explain about the "toxicants". I'd rather use a neutral word rather than poisons. QuackGuru (talk) 02:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, it may be in the source, but its incorrect. I'd challenge you to name a non-chemical constituent of any material or object. Formerly 98 (talk) 02:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I will change the word since it is an issue. QuackGuru (talk) 03:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Formerly 98 (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The paragraph is titled "Chemical Constituents" but the specific text says "toxicants". I went ahead and changed the word. QuackGuru (talk) 03:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Another new study

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

You need to give it time for the evidence to filter through to secondary sources. There are several interesting meta-analyses expected later this year. I think the first step in de-shambles~ing the article would be writing what is already there in clearer language. SPACKlick (talk) 11:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. We don't need to mention every single study, even if it doesn't say anything worthwhile. The whole environmental impact section needs to go for example, because it doesn't say anything about environmental impact. Given what's actually known it should really be a pretty short article.--InfiniteBratwurst (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with deleting entire relevant paragraphs. I just added a more concise paragraph about nicotine and expanded the page a bit. QuackGuru (talk) 01:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The last thing this article needs is expanding. What it needs is a drastic pruning to get rid of all the he said/she said rubbish. Just because a study exists does not mean its conclusions - especially if they boil down to "We don't know" - are worthy of including in the article. Please stop adding trivia.--InfiniteBratwurst (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Intro needs a big trim and tidy

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

I feel it's important we keep the references, just because it is so contentious of a topic (see WP:LEDE). As for cutting it down, please do! -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

For these types of articles the refs should stay in the lede per WP:LEDECITE. User:Snori, you don't have to wait for unprotection. Please edit my sandbox. The lede should stay at four paragraphs according to WP:LEADLENGTH for this article. QuackGuru (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Snori, this change is WP:OR and does not summarise the body. For example, "Electronic cigarettes were first been developed in 2003" is not about safety. The part "The safety of electronic cigarettes is an ongoing area of debate." is unsourced. QuackGuru (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Chill out. I'm working on getting some wording together and doing this in my userspace/sandbox because that's convenient. Although you can clearly see that area, I don't think it's helpful for you or anyone else to comment on it while it's underway, because it will undoubtedly be initially far worse that the current lead. Thanks for the offer, but I also don't think it makes much sense for me to edit in your area. Snori (talk) 19:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Snori, I trimmed the lede again. QuackGuru (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Refs are key and should not be trimmed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Snori.

This is the fifth time I have been summoned to this article by a RfC. When I first saw it the article was poor, and it continues to get worse. It is very long and unclear, containing no information accessible to the ordinary reader, who may well have an valid interest in the subject. It appears to be written, not for ordinary readers, not even for ordinary doctors, but for specialists in the field. I wish it could be much shorter, and say something like this:

"Electronic cigarettes are a danger to health because they administer nicotine, a toxic and addictive substance which can cause < list of diseases, with references >. However, those who are addicted to nicotine may prefer them to tobacco-based cigarettes, which as well as nicotine also administer tar and < list of other chemicals, with references >, which can cause lung cancer and < list of other diseases, with references >."

I realise this is never going to happen.Maproom (talk) 08:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I also agree that the lede needs a lot of work. Its overly difficult to read and complex. Per WP:LEAD the lede should be easy to read and have the major controversies, but it should be more neutral that the edit you suggest. AlbinoFerret 13:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

No, the lede does not need a lot of work. You have not pointed out what is the specific issue. The lede should be four paragraphs per WP:LEADLENGTH for this lengthy article. QuackGuru (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes 4 paragraphs is appropriate for an article of this length (ignoring whether or not the article should be trimmed) but that is a general guideline—but not absolute rule. It should also provide an accessible overview per MOS:INTRO, Assess material based on relative importance to the subject of the article per MOS:BEGIN and also should tell the nonspecialist reader what (or who) the subject is. The real issue with it is that it is badly written. I would also say that there is some weight issue in the distribution of information. It's poorly written and like the whole article suffers from repetition and bloat. SPACKlick (talk) 19:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Maproom, the source says "Consequently, safety concerns exist regarding e-cigarette user exposure to harmful and potentially harmful constituents (HPHCs), including nicotine, which has the potential to cause addiction and other adverse events."[34] For the lede I kept the wording concise. The lede now says "There are safety issues to being exposed to potentially lethal nicotine from e-cigarette use.[12]"[35] QuackGuru (talk) 03:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

QuackGuru Please point out in the source where it says people are exposed to potentially lethal doses from e-cigarette use. AlbinoFerret 03:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I tweaked the wording. It now says "There are safety issues to e-cigarette users from being exposed to potentially lethal nicotine.[12]" QuackGuru (talk) 03:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

"There are safety issues to e-cigarette users from being exposed to potentially lethal nicotine." Ref to: Cheng, T. (2014). "Chemical evaluation of electronic cigarettes". Tobacco Control 23 (Supplement 2): ii11–ii17. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051482. ISSN 0964-4563. PMC 3995255. PMID 24732157.

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

Thanks, neither could I, but it was possible I had missed it so I asked. AlbinoFerret 03:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The source says "...safety concerns exist regarding e-cigarette user exposure to harmful and potentially harmful constituents (HPHCs), including nicotine...". QuackGuru (talk) 03:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, you thought it was ok to jump from "harmful" to "lethal"? Johnbod (talk) 03:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I changed it to "toxic" and you changed it to "harmful". Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 03:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The question is, why did you change it to "potentially lethal" in the first place? Because that fails WP:V and looks a lot like POV pushing, doesn't it?--InfiniteBratwurst (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the real question is, can anyone phrase "There are safety issues to e-cigarette users..." in English? maybe "Some have safety concerns over users being exposed to potentially harmful nicotine" or "there are safety concerns over..." or "There are potential dangers from..." Because it's currently worded really unreadably. SPACKlick (talk) 07:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

That is awkward, isn't it. Hrm. Perhaps "concerns the product isn't safe" or "concerns the product presents risks to"? Better yet, put it in an active voice: "health and safety experts are concerned about risks from"? Cloudjpk (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The wording was recently changed. See "E-cigarette users are exposed to potentially harmful nicotine.[12]" QuackGuru (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that adresses the point at all. "Exposed to potentially harmful nicotine" is very different from "Experts are concerned about several potential risks from the product" I like Cloudjpk's "health and safety experts are concerned about risks from" but it will need a ref for health and safety experts (experts could be changed for proffessionals, bodies etc as apt for ref) SPACKlick (talk) 10:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

We should not include an WP:ASSERT violation in the lede when there is no serious dispute. The specific details are in the body anyhow. QuackGuru (talk) 21:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Mammoth edit adding position statements

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

After I removed it, quack reverted it. There is no discussion of such a mammoth change to the article. AlbinoFerret 23:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

There is a discussion for the positions. See Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettes#Positions. The consensus so far is to include them. QuackGuru (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Since the RFC is only days old, it is way to soon to draw conclusions. Large changes should be discussed before making the edits. Not just that some sources but specifically whats to be added. 17,450 characters isnt just large, its huge. Making it all at one time is another problem, discuss changes first and in manageable pieces. AlbinoFerret 13:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Clearly the whole point in having an RFC is to determine consensus. But what QG is saying is that even though the RFC is nowhere near finished they can determine the consensus themselves. Therefore there's no need for an uninvolved editor to come in, close the RFC and determine consensus because QG can just do it themselves. Not only that they can perform yet another massive edit on that basis. Rigghttt.... Levelledout (talk) 14:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a tempest in a teapot. You guys are getting buried in your attempt to override major Wikipedia sourcing guidelines via a local RFc, and even if you had succeeded you'd have been reversed in administrative review. Maybe best to save your ammo for a fight in which you have a defensible position and are not massively outnumbered. Formerly 98 (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course. The RFC has its uses but overriding major Wikipedia sourcing guidelines is not one of them. It would nice to move forward here. Cloudjpk (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually I haven't even really looked at the RFC in detail. All I have noticed is that a particular editor, not for the first time, comes along and makes a massive edit and then gives the reason above to justify it which is not a valid one. The edit as usual contains highly contentious, vague, partisan statements. Sourcing guidelines are not the be-all-and-end-all of Wikipedia and even the sourcing guidelines themselves state that compliance does not guarantee inclusion. Regardless of sourcing, neutrality has to respected and consensus has to be sought. You can't trump those things either. So no actually, I don't think its justified to ignore an ongoing RFC merely because something complies with one particular guideline.Levelledout (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Where is the discussion of the edits? And quite a bit of this mammoth edit is referencing the sources that are under discussion at the RfC. And since it is quite obvious from the fact that it gets reverted that the edits are controversial. It is indeed WP:BADFAITH to keep inserting it against consensus and in the face of a running RfC. I would suggest that editors try to add/discuss individual additions that are not part of the running RfC - instead of doing massive insertions that they know that there isn't consensus for! --Kim D. Petersen 23:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree, smaller edits should be brought up in discussion and then the discussion can lead to an edit. These mammoth edits are hard to break apart. Quack did this in secret, building a huge edit in his sandbox without any discussion and dumping it in all at once. He had more than enough opportunity to bring the edits up in pieces seeing how he started building on Feb 10th. AlbinoFerret 02:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

You misunderstand when you use the term secret. The sole reason for the WP:Sandbox is for experimenting without disturbing main space content, and using it is not per se contentious as you seem to assume. If you believe any of the individual statements are subject to the RfC you should take them up appropriately, instead of blanket deleting major additions. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 10:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

No,, this wasnt just experimenting. 16 days of building on edits without discussion is a real problem when you are planning on making a mammoth edit. This wasnt perfecting the way it looks in a few hours and then adding a little bit to the article. This was just adding, and adding day after day without discussing it with any editor and then dumping 16,414 characters into the article. You cant put lipstick on that pig. AlbinoFerret 12:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The size of the edit is irrelevant, bring up your concerns instead of deleting because "it's too large". -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 13:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The size is irrelevant? I dont think so, its about 1/4th of the present articles size. WP:CAUTIOUS deals with this, its policy to discuss major changes to the article. 16,414 characters is more than the definition of a major change. It isnt just because its to large, its just good practice to discuss edits. Making them smaller to make discussions easer is the best way to get inclusion, unless you want to discuss this for a long time because of a lack of focus. But specific edits still have not been brought forth.AlbinoFerret 13:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

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

The size does matter per WP:CAUTIOUS, it was never discussed. The edit also contains position statements, they are not suitable for making medical claims. AlbinoFerret 22:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Your making vague objections that position statements are unreliable but in the RfC most editors disagree with you. QuackGuru (talk) 22:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The RFC is far from over, it is only days old, and so far is at no consensus. AlbinoFerret 22:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Removal of mammoth edit

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

Like I said. There plenty of discussion for the positions. See Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettes#Positions. The consensus has resulted in WP:SNOW. QuackGuru (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The edits themselves were never discussed. A majority of the sources were never discussed, and none were discussed before adding them. AlbinoFerret 18:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

If you're aware of an unreliable source, please identify it. That would help improve the page. Cloudjpk (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Are there issues with the sources or the summary of said sources? Not "liking" material is not justification for removal. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

It isnt just not liking the material. There are issues with some of the sources, currently the subject of a RFC. There are also NPOV issues. There is a WP:CAUTIOUS issue in that a mammoth edit was done without any discussion or consensus. AlbinoFerret 22:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

According to the Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettes#Positions discussion there are no issues with the sources per WP:SNOW. QuackGuru (talk) 22:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

User:AlbinoFerret, you were asked "Are there issues with the sources or the summary of said sources?" So far you have not specifically explained which new sources are a concern to justify your blanket revert and there is a clear consensus for the the positions of the organisations. QuackGuru (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

This is the discussion. User:AlbinoFerret, so why did you delete so many sources including reviews against MEDRS? QuackGuru (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

User:AlbinoFerret, the votes for the positions is 12 to include and 4 to exclude. So far there is a broad consensus to include them. After 2 weeks there is no specific argument to exclude so many sources, including reviews such as (PMID 24732159) and (PMID 24732160) and (PMID 25572196). So what is the reason to making a full revert back to an older version? QuackGuru (talk) 00:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed removal of Environmental Impact section

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

• Support - This section says nothing. It's 100% speculation and the reference itself admits it isn't based on any research, so it's not a secondary source.--InfiniteBratwurst (talk) 23:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Chang, H. (2014). "Research gaps related to the environmental impacts of electronic cigarettes". Tobacco Control. 23 (Supplement 2): ii54–ii58. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051480. ISSN 0964-4563. PMC 3995274. PMID 24732165. The source is reliable. I disagree it is trivia. QuackGuru (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's reliable, because it doesn't actually say anything. Hard to get more trivial than that.--InfiniteBratwurst (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support - Per InfiniteBratwurst -A1candidate 21:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose The requirement for discussion is that high quality secondary sources exist. "Known unknowns" are notable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

This isn't a secondary source, high quality or otherwise. Secondary sources are reviews of primary sources, not random speculation.--InfiniteBratwurst (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Agree with Doc James. Cloudjpk (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per Doc James. The concerns are from quality secondary sources, they should not be downplayed because they are unsubstantiated when they make no secret of it. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 22:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Where is the secondary source? There cannot be one without primary sources, which Cheng himself admits do not exist.--InfiniteBratwurst (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I counted 21 references. QuackGuru (talk) 23:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

None of which support the claims you made in the article, because those are all "No research has been conducted into..." That section adds nothing and should be removed until there is some research.--InfiniteBratwurst (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Every sentence reflects the WP:TRUTH using reliable WP:MEDRS reviews. QuackGuru (talk) 03:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Every sentence starts "No research has been conducted into..." or "Nothing is known about...". Therefore this is not a secondary source. The section says nothing. I think you have WP:OWN issues with it.--InfiniteBratwurst (talk) 11:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• It is too long and should be the last section of all. That's if we think that "Environmental Impact" is actually a "safety" issue at all. I suspect that we don't so treat it for other products. Johnbod (talk) 04:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree with this. "Known unknowns" may be notable as Doc James says above, but is it really necessary to go into quite as much detail about these quite specific type of unknowns as we have done, all drawn practically from one single source? I suspect not. One or two sentences summing up the most important points would probably suffice, if environmental impact is relevant to the article that is. If not it probably belongs in the main one.Levelledout (talk) 00:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Notice

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

• Notification. I started an ArbCom discussion. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Battleground on e-cig articles. QuackGuru (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• The case was declined. QuackGuru (talk) 09:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

So it was, but editors would do well to take on board the comments made in the discussion. Johnbod (talk) 13:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

See Arbitration request. This was a suggestion to fix the issues. QuackGuru (talk) 16:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

That was one suggestion. A rather larger number of others referred to your conduct, User:QuackGuru. Johnbod (talk) 16:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

A 2015 review

QuackGuru (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Meo 2014 review

Resolved

QuackGuru (talk) 05:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Done. Added content. http://www.europeanreview.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/3315-3319.pdf The page could be expand a bit more using this source. <ref name=Meo2014/> QuackGuru (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Lithium batteries

Resolved

Cases of individuals being injured by exploding lithium batteries have also been reported in the news. Some lithium batteries are poorly designed, contain low-quality materials, or have manufacturing flaws and defects. Improper use and handling of these batteries can contribute to thermal runaway, where the internal battery temperature increases and causes fires or explosions.35 Some of these explosions have resulted in house and car fires and severe skin burns.

http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196%2814%2900989-6/fulltext The source is already in the page. The short citation is <ref name=EbbertAgunwamba2015/> QuackGuru (talk) 01:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

You mean all the usual issues of lithium battery ownership, yawn, why not just put all of this on the relevant page Lithium battery and then link there with a one liner "usual risks of lithium batteries"

Effect on Bystanders

Hajek makes the wider claim that any effect on bystanders would be likely much less harmful than tobacco cigarettes if it's harmful at all. This claim should be included with the claim about exposing bystanders to toxins to avoid NPOV. SPACKlick (talk) 02:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

To avoid SYN we don't connect sentences that way. QuackGuru (talk) 03:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Already fixed. SPACKlick (talk) 03:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)