|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Cotinine.
without any other information on the same context, the last paragraph sounds like an advertisement of nicotine and cotinine.
Would also like to see some documentary evidence on menthol cigarettes and women - seems a bit suspect to me
Regarding the first objection, I have read the last paragraph several times and I just don't see why someone would find it particularly biased. In the first sentence the author states a fact: "There is some research being done on the memory and brain-function improving effects of cotinine." The second sentence elaborates on the research mentioned in the first sentence: "Cotinine (as well as nicotine) appears to improve memory function, and prevent cell death." The final sentence gives a specific context or possibility of the implications of the second sentence: "For this reason it has been studied for effectiveness in treating Alzheimer's disease." The author has failed to cite any articles or web pages which validate the three facts stated and I agree that any scientific theories stated should be backed up with sources. However, the tone of the objection to this paragraph leads me to believe that the lack of neutrality may not lie in the article, but in the accuser, who may be personally biased against nicotine and cotinine and perhaps feels that any statements, even factual ones, which state that these substances have potential positive qualities are biased. I wonder if the article had mentioned the harm of second hand smoking without citing any research if the accuser would have opposed it for being a commercial against nicotine. But in spirit of impartiality, I found two articles --one on the potential use of nicotine for treatment of schizophrenia, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases, the other about research which shows that nicotine may not be as beneficial as the previous research indicated. I will add these references to the article to clarify the lack of bias. I hope that the accuser is sincere in their pursuit of knowledge and objectivity and will keep in mind that nicotine is a chemical with neurological effects and that smoking is a recreational habit, and while smoking requires nicotine, the two are not the same thing and that people should be careful not to let their feelings towards one affect their views of the other.
--Crazytonyi15:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
In reference to the second objection, once again, the author of the article has erred by not citing sources. A two-second Google search verified the statement. I will make annotations to support the statement, and I hope that with all suspicions of bias or partiality set at ease, the accusers will remove the NPOV from this article. I am disappointed that someone would prefer to smear the integrity of an article rather than take basic steps to verify and update uncited information.
--Crazytonyi 16:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
The original POV objection seems to be resolved to me, with the addition of the citations. What are the rules about removing the POV tag? I don't know if the objector will ever return to remove the tag.
pdrap 21:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
After waiting and receiving no response, and noting that objections have been satisfied with regard to the POV, I'm removing the tag. If this is incorrect procedure, I'd appreciate pointers to whatever procedure exists for the removal of a POV tag. I've been unable to find it, so I'm going to just do something which I consider reasonable.
pdrap 21:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Source #12 (LiveStrong) is not scholarly and therefore not necessarily reliable.
It is also important that the neurodegenerative effects of cotinine be stated: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23512588 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 15:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)