Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 26) (bot |
|||
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 223: | Line 223: | ||
::::::I tried another impact factor search.[http://www.journal-database.com/?q=Management+and+Healthcare+Policy] and the journal doesnt seem to be listed. Is it possible that the zero reflects its not listed? [[User:AlbinoFerret|<span style="color:white; background-color:#534545; font-weight: bold; font-size: 90%;">AlbinoFerret</span>]] 21:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC) |
::::::I tried another impact factor search.[http://www.journal-database.com/?q=Management+and+Healthcare+Policy] and the journal doesnt seem to be listed. Is it possible that the zero reflects its not listed? [[User:AlbinoFerret|<span style="color:white; background-color:#534545; font-weight: bold; font-size: 90%;">AlbinoFerret</span>]] 21:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC) |
||
::::::After posting that I did a google scholar search.[https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Risk+Management+and+Healthcare+Policy%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C14] Impact factor is based on the amount of times a journal is cited. Either its not listed or the searches are broken, because the articles in the journal have been cited a lot. [[User:AlbinoFerret|<span style="color:white; background-color:#534545; font-weight: bold; font-size: 90%;">AlbinoFerret</span>]] 22:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC) |
::::::After posting that I did a google scholar search.[https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Risk+Management+and+Healthcare+Policy%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C14] Impact factor is based on the amount of times a journal is cited. Either its not listed or the searches are broken, because the articles in the journal have been cited a lot. [[User:AlbinoFerret|<span style="color:white; background-color:#534545; font-weight: bold; font-size: 90%;">AlbinoFerret</span>]] 22:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC) |
||
== Duplication and removal of well sourced material == |
|||
The edit summary claims it was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&type=revision&diff=685808171&oldid=685798078 a review] and there was no explanation for deleting the other text. This edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&type=revision&diff=685808171&oldid=685798078 added duplication] and removed well sourced material. I did [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&type=revision&diff=677092326&oldid=677088503 summarise the same source with almost the identical wording] in another section. See [[Electronic_cigarette#Positions_of_medical_organizations]]. See [[Electronic_cigarette#cite_ref-McNeill201576_84-0]]. [[User:QuackGuru|<font color="vermillion">'''QuackGuru'''</font>]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|<font color="burntorange">talk</font>]]) 18:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:58, 15 October 2015
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Harm Reduction
Looking at the Harm reduction section it contains a lot of information that isnt about harm reduction but quitting or safety. These this will have to be removed/moved as they are off topic. AlbinoFerret 22:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Failed verification
This line "A 2014 review stated that regulations for e-cigarettes should be similar to those for dietary supplements or cosmetic products to not limit their potential for harm reduction.[31]" can not be verified in the source. AlbinoFerret 22:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Regulation
Really we need a section on this one day. Like many of our sources, especially by clinicians with no expertise in the area, we mention "regulation" like it is just one thing, instead of about 100 very different possibilities, some clearly good, others probably counter-productive, and some driving the interests of big tobacco. A good start on these matters is What to consider when regulating electronic cigarettes: Pros, cons and unintended consequences, Pasquale Caponnettoa, b, , , Daniela Saittab, David Sweanorc, Riccardo Polosaa, b , International Journal of Drug Policy, Volume 26, Issue 6, June 2015, Pages 554–559. Johnbod (talk) 17:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- I think it is just a commentary (PMID 25857204). See Electronic cigarette#Legal status for regulation. When there is regulation then the lede and Legal status will require updating. QuackGuru (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I have seen it QG, & I think it's crap in this respect. Commentaries are all you are going to get in this non-clinical area. As always, your resistance to an encyclopedic treatment shines through. Johnbod (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- For controversial medical claims we typically use WP:MEDRS compliant sources. I added numerous reviews. When there is regulations in the UK and US I'm sure there will be many reviews to cite. QuackGuru (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Legislation is not a "medical claim" but a fact, and not a MEDRS matter, and medical reviews are typically an unsuitable source for covering it per MEDRS itself, as they are written by doctors who are not experts as opposed to lawyers who are. The issues that bring legislation into prospect may involve MEDRS issues, but typically not those that are suitably covered by the normal EBM hierarchy. Johnbod (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Legislation and especially proposed legislation is based upon medical knowledge, and far from it–any properly conceived legislation is the joint product of doctors and lawyers. As such we need to apply similar sourcing guidelines as those on information about health effects. Several high quality reports discuss regulation, even by WP:RS standards using them is preferred. CFCF 💌 📧 20:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Actual regulation in force should generally not have clinical sources, except for convenience. There will be plenty of better sources available, certainly for the Anglosphere. The clinical literature contains, for example, many statements (wholly contradictory in different sources) on the economic effects of potential regulation, that lie well outside their authors' expertise. Johnbod (talk) 20:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- I agree Johnbod, there should be plenty of sources in the english language and MEDRS should not be a requirement for the most part since we are talking about a legal claim. If compliant MEDRS sources are available there is no harm using them if they are easier to find. AlbinoFerret 20:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- We are not ones to make judgment of what falls under their expertise, and it is troubling that you suggest public health experts are not fit to make judgments about economic effects of regulation (not referring to effects on industry). For information on regulation that is in place–it does not need to be MEDRS-compliant, but anything on health effects of regulation most certainly does. CFCF 💌 📧 21:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- I never said what falls under anyone expertise. Where in the MEDRS guideline can we find that it applies to Laws and legal topics? AlbinoFerret 22:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Health information is health information regardless what other topics it relates to. CFCF 💌 📧 23:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Laws and regulation is not a health topic or health information. AlbinoFerret 23:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Health information is health information regardless what other topics it relates to. CFCF 💌 📧 23:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- I never said what falls under anyone expertise. Where in the MEDRS guideline can we find that it applies to Laws and legal topics? AlbinoFerret 22:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- We are not ones to make judgment of what falls under their expertise, and it is troubling that you suggest public health experts are not fit to make judgments about economic effects of regulation (not referring to effects on industry). For information on regulation that is in place–it does not need to be MEDRS-compliant, but anything on health effects of regulation most certainly does. CFCF 💌 📧 21:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- I agree Johnbod, there should be plenty of sources in the english language and MEDRS should not be a requirement for the most part since we are talking about a legal claim. If compliant MEDRS sources are available there is no harm using them if they are easier to find. AlbinoFerret 20:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Actual regulation in force should generally not have clinical sources, except for convenience. There will be plenty of better sources available, certainly for the Anglosphere. The clinical literature contains, for example, many statements (wholly contradictory in different sources) on the economic effects of potential regulation, that lie well outside their authors' expertise. Johnbod (talk) 20:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Legislation and especially proposed legislation is based upon medical knowledge, and far from it–any properly conceived legislation is the joint product of doctors and lawyers. As such we need to apply similar sourcing guidelines as those on information about health effects. Several high quality reports discuss regulation, even by WP:RS standards using them is preferred. CFCF 💌 📧 20:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Legislation is not a "medical claim" but a fact, and not a MEDRS matter, and medical reviews are typically an unsuitable source for covering it per MEDRS itself, as they are written by doctors who are not experts as opposed to lawyers who are. The issues that bring legislation into prospect may involve MEDRS issues, but typically not those that are suitably covered by the normal EBM hierarchy. Johnbod (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- For controversial medical claims we typically use WP:MEDRS compliant sources. I added numerous reviews. When there is regulations in the UK and US I'm sure there will be many reviews to cite. QuackGuru (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I have seen it QG, & I think it's crap in this respect. Commentaries are all you are going to get in this non-clinical area. As always, your resistance to an encyclopedic treatment shines through. Johnbod (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- You lot are talking past each other. Let's go back to what Johnbod actually said. It was:-
The clinical literature contains, for example, many statements (wholly contradictory in different sources) on the economic effects of potential regulation, that lie well outside their authors' expertise.
Clearly, the relevant professionals on this subject are lawyers and economists rather than doctors, and I would invite anyone who thinks otherwise to read the discussion more closely.—S Marshall T/C 01:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- As I said in my first response, that statement is incorrect. The relevant commentary is from public health professionals, which are are primarily doctors.CFCF 💌 📧 05:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed. And a doctor's view of that particular subject is exactly as valuable as a lawyer's opinion about your health.—S Marshall T/C 07:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- What do you mean? CFCF 💌 📧 10:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- What I mean is that I wouldn't pay much heed to a lawyer or economist's view about my health. If either of them had the cheek to express an opinion on that, then I would ignore then and ask a doctor who actually knows what s/he was talking about. Equally, I wouldn't pay much heed to a doctor's view about the economic effects of regulating e-cigarettes, and if a doctor does have the cheek to express a view on that, then their view should be disregarded and a subject matter expert's thoughts should be sought instead.—S Marshall T/C 10:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- What do you mean? CFCF 💌 📧 10:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed. And a doctor's view of that particular subject is exactly as valuable as a lawyer's opinion about your health.—S Marshall T/C 07:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- As I said in my first response, that statement is incorrect. The relevant commentary is from public health professionals, which are are primarily doctors.CFCF 💌 📧 05:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
A couple of things:
- Discussion of regulations are not exclusively medical positions and therefore do not need top quality medical source
- Public health / community health and epidemiology / occupational health is a medical sub speciality that deals extensively with aspects of law. Thus its position is entirely relevant. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes. My other point at starting was that we are too vague, referring to "regulation" as though it was one specific thing - as many clinical sources also do. Just to spell it out, types of regulation might cover, among many other things: "medicalization" (compulsory as in Canada, or optional as in the UK - very different things), advertising (by medium, by time, by content}, labelling & packaging (child-proof bottles, colours, claims, warnings), where ecigs can be sold, who ecigs can be sold to, where ecigs can be used, manufacturing controls, types of flavouring allowed, amount of nicotine allowed - and a whole bunch of other things. Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- The issue with the original comment is that the best current sources concerning proposed regulation are those by organizations like the FDA and WHO—giving the suggested commentary the same weight is WP:UNDUE.
When it comes to in which cases MEDRS applies it is down to the intended effect of regulation: if it is aimed towards public health benefits the sources should abide by MEDRS; if it is to increase tax-revenue on sold ecigs then it is not. CFCF 💌 📧 15:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)- P.S. On the whole I agree with you Johnbod, just not about that specific source. Here is a statement from the American Public Health Association that might be interesting [1] I haven't read it yet
CFCF 💌 📧 15:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)- Well not really. Tax is hardly an issue anywhere afaik; perhaps it's interesting that afaik no country has proposed to tax ecigs punitively like tobacco is in many places. Keeping the ecig business out of the hands of big tobacco is often mentioned, though as in the EU, many attempts at regulation or suggestions for it seem likely to be counter-productive in this. See the PHE report on this (which also has a number of specific recommendations on regulation). Johnbod (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, well the PHE report is a much better source. It might be fruitful to draft a new == Regulation == section here. CFCF 💌 📧 16:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- While it doesnt matter where the section is developed, isnt regulation more in line with the Legal status of electronic cigarettes article? AlbinoFerret
- There too, certainly. Unfortunately, at the moment that article is wholly country by country (state by state etc), and the different types of regulation are all jumbled up there, with the main emphasis on the relatively few complete "bans" and medicalization. Arguably, the subject is complicated enough, and with regulation likely to increase on very different models, to justify a new article eventually. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- I thought Legal status of electronic cigarettes and Regulation of electronic cigarettes are the same topic. I was not thinking of adding more information about the "potential regulation" because there is soon going to be regulation in the UK and the US. QuackGuru (talk) 00:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- One concern with expanding on the topic of potential regulations is WP:CRYSTALBALL. It might be better to focus on whats actually happened. AlbinoFerret 00:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- I thought Legal status of electronic cigarettes and Regulation of electronic cigarettes are the same topic. I was not thinking of adding more information about the "potential regulation" because there is soon going to be regulation in the UK and the US. QuackGuru (talk) 00:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- There too, certainly. Unfortunately, at the moment that article is wholly country by country (state by state etc), and the different types of regulation are all jumbled up there, with the main emphasis on the relatively few complete "bans" and medicalization. Arguably, the subject is complicated enough, and with regulation likely to increase on very different models, to justify a new article eventually. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- While it doesnt matter where the section is developed, isnt regulation more in line with the Legal status of electronic cigarettes article? AlbinoFerret
- Yes, well the PHE report is a much better source. It might be fruitful to draft a new == Regulation == section here. CFCF 💌 📧 16:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well not really. Tax is hardly an issue anywhere afaik; perhaps it's interesting that afaik no country has proposed to tax ecigs punitively like tobacco is in many places. Keeping the ecig business out of the hands of big tobacco is often mentioned, though as in the EU, many attempts at regulation or suggestions for it seem likely to be counter-productive in this. See the PHE report on this (which also has a number of specific recommendations on regulation). Johnbod (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- P.S. On the whole I agree with you Johnbod, just not about that specific source. Here is a statement from the American Public Health Association that might be interesting [1] I haven't read it yet
- The issue with the original comment is that the best current sources concerning proposed regulation are those by organizations like the FDA and WHO—giving the suggested commentary the same weight is WP:UNDUE.
- Yes. My other point at starting was that we are too vague, referring to "regulation" as though it was one specific thing - as many clinical sources also do. Just to spell it out, types of regulation might cover, among many other things: "medicalization" (compulsory as in Canada, or optional as in the UK - very different things), advertising (by medium, by time, by content}, labelling & packaging (child-proof bottles, colours, claims, warnings), where ecigs can be sold, who ecigs can be sold to, where ecigs can be used, manufacturing controls, types of flavouring allowed, amount of nicotine allowed - and a whole bunch of other things. Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Legal status of electronic cigarettes vs Regulation of electronic cigarettes
Legal status of electronic cigarettes is limited to only legal status. But with the title Regulation of electronic cigarettes it is very broad. I can create a new article for Regulation of electronic cigarettes. Please provide at least six refs and possibly start a sandbox if anyone is interested in my services. QuackGuru (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- ... or you could, you know, let someone else do it. Just a thought. I've asked Arbcom to stop you from editing in the topic area until the case is over.—S Marshall T/C 16:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
User:Johnbod, please provide some references and we can create a new page. After you provide the references you will soon see a new page. QuackGuru (talk) 16:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Videos
This article needs videos discussing e-cigarettes. Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 03:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Depends on the quality of the videos. I think WikiProject Medicine is encouraging videos in articles. They are probably good from an accessibility standpoint as well. Sizeofint (talk) 05:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- While I dont think we can use them directly in the article, this might be a good place to link to. Its a page of conference video's from the Global Conference on Nicotine and has a lot of e-cigarette videos. [2] included in the collection are authors of sources we use in the articles like Peter Hajek and Konstantinos Farsalinos. AlbinoFerret 05:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Are any of these videos allowed to be uploaded for this article? QuackGuru (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see anything obvious saying they have a CC SA or similar license Sizeofint (talk) 19:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- Then we should not use them, but a link in see also might be a good idea. AlbinoFerret 21:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think that would violate EL for links. QuackGuru (talk) 22:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- Can you be more specific, what on the WP:EL page would it violate. I took a look and #3 of WP:ELYES seems to fit for allowing the link. AlbinoFerret 02:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- The site is not very informative and it is not neutral. The video Vaping Advocate of the Year Awards is irrelevant. I think a video about the society and culture for "Society and culture" would be good. According to a 2014 review vapers act as "unpaid evangelicals".[3] I think our readers would like to know the backstory about the extreme excitement about sucking on metal to get a quick burst of nicotine. I would like to understand a bit more about the fanaticism. There is even cloud-chasing competitions. QuackGuru (talk) 04:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- This seems to me to be rather POV - don't you think? What does the WP:WEIGHT of the literature indicate that this particular subbranch of interest of yours should receive in coverage? --Kim D. Petersen 09:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- The site contains vidos of presentation by authors of sources we use in the articles like Peter Hajek and Konstantinos Farsalinos. Link directly to them. AlbinoFerret 12:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- I was referring to QG's comment :) The GCN videos seem very relevant, and i could ask if we may use them. --Kim D. Petersen 12:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Kim, please do, asking would allow us to put specific video's in. AlbinoFerret 13:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- I was referring to QG's comment :) The GCN videos seem very relevant, and i could ask if we may use them. --Kim D. Petersen 12:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- The site contains vidos of presentation by authors of sources we use in the articles like Peter Hajek and Konstantinos Farsalinos. Link directly to them. AlbinoFerret 12:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- This seems to me to be rather POV - don't you think? What does the WP:WEIGHT of the literature indicate that this particular subbranch of interest of yours should receive in coverage? --Kim D. Petersen 09:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- The site is not very informative and it is not neutral. The video Vaping Advocate of the Year Awards is irrelevant. I think a video about the society and culture for "Society and culture" would be good. According to a 2014 review vapers act as "unpaid evangelicals".[3] I think our readers would like to know the backstory about the extreme excitement about sucking on metal to get a quick burst of nicotine. I would like to understand a bit more about the fanaticism. There is even cloud-chasing competitions. QuackGuru (talk) 04:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Can you be more specific, what on the WP:EL page would it violate. I took a look and #3 of WP:ELYES seems to fit for allowing the link. AlbinoFerret 02:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think that would violate EL for links. QuackGuru (talk) 22:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- Then we should not use them, but a link in see also might be a good idea. AlbinoFerret 21:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Please explain how it is unreliable. AlbinoFerret 19:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- That is one thing that i would be curious about as well. Why would the GFN be unreliable for this? The individual videos are naturally the views of the speakers in the video, and thus under the same reliability restrictions that we normally place on such - but why would the site itself be unreliable? Afaik the only thing that could make the site itself unreliable, is if there is a suspicion that it has an unreliable editorial policy. Is that what you are saying QG? --Kim D. Petersen 23:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- QG what i think you may be trying to say is that conference material generally are less reliable than peer-reviewed sources, which is entirely correct - we should always use WP:MEDRS reviews etc. in preference over conference material. But then again, that is not what we are talking about - is it? The case in general for videos is that the material is significantly less reliable than peer-reviewed material - so we are probably talking apples/oranges - correct? --Kim D. Petersen 00:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think it would be better to upload a video of Hon Lik discussing e-cigarettes. It could be added to "History" or "Society and culture", depending on what he said. QuackGuru (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Would be rather difficult since Hon Lik doesn't talk english, and holds speeches via interpretor. At least that is what he did at GFN15. --Kim D. Petersen 04:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- You could ask him for an exclusive video for Wikipedia. Someone on Wikipedia could interpret the speech with words added to the video. I think people want to hear first hand from the inventor of the modern e-cigarette. QuackGuru (talk) 20:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think you mistake Wikipedia for journalism. We aren't here to satisfy peoples curiosities, but to document subjects according to the WP:WEIGHT of the literature about that subject. Your request is smack down in WP:OR land. --Kim D. Petersen 01:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- This is simpler than you think. A video can work like this. QuackGuru (talk) 02:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Doesn't have anything to do with simple vs. complex or difficult. It has everything to do with core Wikipedia policies. Hon Lik is only interesting for having invented the modern e-cigarette - his views aren't interesting outside of journalism. Thus my mentioning of WP:WEIGHT, and creating a video is the epitome of WP:OR. You are confusing this with journalism - which WP is not. And you seem to be basing your suggestion entirely on your personal view of what is "interesting" instead of relying on reliable sources to guide you. --Kim D. Petersen 02:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- If Hon Lik is only interesting for having invented the modern e-cigarette than that could be what the video covers. At least add an image and/or video to the Hon Lik page. QuackGuru (talk) 02:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Why are you even discussing Hon Lik here? Why would WP:WEIGHT indicate that we should have a video on/about him? And why on earth are you suggesting that we as wikipedia editors should engage in WP:OR? Either WP:RS's have made such material available or there isn't a an interest in it. You are suggesting that we break a heck of a lot of WP policies. Please stop. --Kim D. Petersen 02:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with you Kim, our job as editors is to find reliable sources that have information we can add. Not to create the material ourselves, that would be WP:OR. Its just something that breaks core policies. Now if we can get approval the GFN Farsalinos video from 2015 would be perfect for construction. AlbinoFerret 03:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Why are you even discussing Hon Lik here? Why would WP:WEIGHT indicate that we should have a video on/about him? And why on earth are you suggesting that we as wikipedia editors should engage in WP:OR? Either WP:RS's have made such material available or there isn't a an interest in it. You are suggesting that we break a heck of a lot of WP policies. Please stop. --Kim D. Petersen 02:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- If Hon Lik is only interesting for having invented the modern e-cigarette than that could be what the video covers. At least add an image and/or video to the Hon Lik page. QuackGuru (talk) 02:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Doesn't have anything to do with simple vs. complex or difficult. It has everything to do with core Wikipedia policies. Hon Lik is only interesting for having invented the modern e-cigarette - his views aren't interesting outside of journalism. Thus my mentioning of WP:WEIGHT, and creating a video is the epitome of WP:OR. You are confusing this with journalism - which WP is not. And you seem to be basing your suggestion entirely on your personal view of what is "interesting" instead of relying on reliable sources to guide you. --Kim D. Petersen 02:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- This is simpler than you think. A video can work like this. QuackGuru (talk) 02:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think you mistake Wikipedia for journalism. We aren't here to satisfy peoples curiosities, but to document subjects according to the WP:WEIGHT of the literature about that subject. Your request is smack down in WP:OR land. --Kim D. Petersen 01:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- You could ask him for an exclusive video for Wikipedia. Someone on Wikipedia could interpret the speech with words added to the video. I think people want to hear first hand from the inventor of the modern e-cigarette. QuackGuru (talk) 20:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Would be rather difficult since Hon Lik doesn't talk english, and holds speeches via interpretor. At least that is what he did at GFN15. --Kim D. Petersen 04:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think it would be better to upload a video of Hon Lik discussing e-cigarettes. It could be added to "History" or "Society and culture", depending on what he said. QuackGuru (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Request verification
I could not verify this claim per WP:V policy. QuackGuru (talk) 04:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes you can. Try harder. They were the only type existing when this rather ancient source was written. Johnbod (talk) 04:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- If you find a newer source to clarify the wording that would be okay but for now I think we should stick to sourced text. QuackGuru (talk) 04:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Of course it is verifiable, and any newspaper or vaping shop site will explain how e-cigs work. Don't you care if WP is accurate or not? Johnbod (talk) 05:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- The source itself verify's it. Look at it, its image is a cigalike. AlbinoFerret 05:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- The source does not verify the claim it is a cigalike. The image does not mention it is a cigalike. QuackGuru (talk) 15:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- The source itself verify's it. Look at it, its image is a cigalike. AlbinoFerret 05:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Of course it is verifiable, and any newspaper or vaping shop site will explain how e-cigs work. Don't you care if WP is accurate or not? Johnbod (talk) 05:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- If you find a newer source to clarify the wording that would be okay but for now I think we should stick to sourced text. QuackGuru (talk) 04:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
@QG, remember paraphrasing? We could say "e-ciagarettes that look like cigarettes" because thats what they are talking about from the context and information in the source. But we have already defined what a cigalike is, heck the word itself is descriptive. There is nothing wrong with rephrasing the information. AlbinoFerret 15:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- I think it is better to replace the source with another source that specifically mentions "cigalikes" and rewrite the claim to match the source. QuackGuru (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- The source is reliable. AlbinoFerret 16:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- The source can be updating since it is too old. QuackGuru (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Very little new information on cigalikes pertaining to construction has come out. There are not a lot of construction sources. The source is reliable. AlbinoFerret 17:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- When the source does not mention cigalikes it is an unreliable source for a claim about cigalikes. You claim "Look at it, its image is a cigalike."[4] and "There is nothing wrong with rephrasing the information."[5] However, the image and source does not specifically state it is a cigalike. QuackGuru (talk) 18:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- The source is reliable. AlbinoFerret 18:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- The source was removed and replaced with a higher quality source to verify the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 22:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- The source is reliable. AlbinoFerret 18:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- When the source does not mention cigalikes it is an unreliable source for a claim about cigalikes. You claim "Look at it, its image is a cigalike."[4] and "There is nothing wrong with rephrasing the information."[5] However, the image and source does not specifically state it is a cigalike. QuackGuru (talk) 18:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Very little new information on cigalikes pertaining to construction has come out. There are not a lot of construction sources. The source is reliable. AlbinoFerret 17:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- The source can be updating since it is too old. QuackGuru (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- The source is reliable. AlbinoFerret 16:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
How many parts?
The number of parts is not static. Most of the sources are relying on old technology. Long ago the manufacturers combined the cartridge and the atomizer. In fact some of the photos on the page show two part cigalikes. The one at the top is. On the Construction page we have a picture of an atomizer, the only reason we can see it is the polyfill that holds the ejuice has been removed. While not perfect this source shows that there are two main parts to every e-cigarette.[6] I am looking for more. AlbinoFerret 19:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Cigalike than dont look like a cigarette?
By definition a cigalike looks like a cigarette, you cant have a cigalike that doesnt look like a cigarette. Any source that says otherwise should be a red flag it is unreliable. AlbinoFerret 21:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- "Most cigalikes resemble cigarettes, although it is important to note that some do not;"[7] Please read page 15 for verification. The source thinks it is important. There are first generation e-cigarettes that look like cigars and pipes. For example, there is an image in this article of a first generation e-cigarette that does not look like a tobacco cigarette. See Electronic cigarette#History. The report is accurate and the source is reliable per WP:MEDORG. QuackGuru (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- The term is widespread, its in general usage as a Google search shows. Here are a few sources[8][9][10] It isnt what one source says, but how the General reader will use it. AlbinoFerret 22:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- On page 15, at the beginning of that paragraph - they make a specific definition of what they will call a "cigalike" - that particular definition is context specific to that report. And does include some none cigarette type e-cigs. But without that context, and without that specific definition, the statement doesn't work, and thus isn't verifiable. This is the trouble with cherry-picking sentences from documents: That you may lose the context, that may change the understanding of the sentence. --Kim D. Petersen 22:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
-
- I provided an image of a first generation e-cigarette that does not resemble a tobacco cigarette to the right. It is black with a blue LED lite.[11] Of course some first generation e-cigarettes look different than a tobacco cigarette. QuackGuru (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Really? Look here [12]. AlbinoFerret 22:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- We are using a high-quality 2015 WP:MEDRS compliant report that tells us more than just repeating what news articles or vaping magazines state. I think we should not mislead the reader to think that all cigalikes look like cigarettes.
- According to you "Cigalikes are a poor product and really don't provide a good representation of todays devices. They are first generation devices." This comment suggests you think the image is a cigalike.
- You wrote in the image caption in respect to the black e-cigarette that it is "a first generation e-cigarette." You can take a closer look here.
- What about the yellow first generation e-cigarette in Electronic cigarette#History. Do you think it looks like a tobacco cigarette? QuackGuru (talk) 23:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- You are using a "high-quality 2015 WP:MEDRS compliant report" that specifically notes that it uses its own particular definition of cigalike - in the very same paragraph where you cherry-pick a sentence. Sigh! --Kim D. Petersen 23:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- I've added a pic of some black tobacco cigarettes. Cigalikes look like a cigarette by having a cigarette shape; they may or may not have differently coloured "filter tip" cartridges, & have a coloured light at the end. Where is a more specific definition? It is OR to make up your own definition of what looking like a cigarette means. Johnbod (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- This is not about the definition of cigalikes. This is simply about some cigalikes look different. I provided verification for the claim which is not WP:OR. QuackGuru (talk) 01:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Really? Look here [12]. AlbinoFerret 22:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- I provided an image of a first generation e-cigarette that does not resemble a tobacco cigarette to the right. It is black with a blue LED lite.[11] Of course some first generation e-cigarettes look different than a tobacco cigarette. QuackGuru (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
-
I agree Johnbod, its the shape. But if QG is going to go color by color, here is a rainbow.[13] AlbinoFerret 00:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- A black cigalike or a yellow cigalike does not look very similar to a traditional cigarette.[14] Can you acknowledge some first generation cigalikes are shaped like cigars? QuackGuru (talk) 01:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
-
- No, an e-cigarette shaped like a cigar would not be a cigalike. A cigalite resembles a cigarette, not a cigar. It would likely be a first generation device, as all I have come across in sources use cartages. AlbinoFerret 02:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Not all 1st generation devices are cigalikes, and not even all cigalikes are 1st gen. (see this for instance). But because most cigalikes are 1st generation, and most 1st generation devices are cigalikes, you get this confusion. This conundrum is solved in the PHE report by making their own contextual definition of what a cigalike is. --Kim D. Petersen 03:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I made this change using a different source. QuackGuru (talk) 04:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- That one looks good, some cigalikes are longer than others and some are thicker/thinner than others. AlbinoFerret 04:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- I made the same edit to the other page. QuackGuru (talk) 04:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Average e-cigarette parts
For now I added this claim. Is there a better source for the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 03:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Already gave a source here.[15] This source gives a general description that applies to the great majority of e-cigarettes. I would say all, but you might be able to find a rare exception. AlbinoFerret 03:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Should we briefly mention this in the safety section?
Jury awards $2.7 million to woman burned by exploding e-cigarette Moriori (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Does the coffee article discuss the woman who spilled hot coffee on herself? Sizeofint (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Are there many Wikipedia editors who actually answer a question without strawmen? I'm not aware of the woman who spilt hot coffee on herself -- please provide a link. But I am aware a woman was badly burned by an exploding electronic cigarette. Do you think she caused it to explode? Moriori (talk) 01:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- The safety section is a WP:SUMMARY. The Safety of electronic cigarettes page is for detailed information on safety. QuackGuru (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- See Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants. I see the cases as analogous. Sizeofint (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Going back to my question above, which you didn't answer -- "Do you think she caused it to explode?" The answer is no. Was the hot coffee lady in any way responsible for her burns? The answer is yes, and the court ruled so. No analogy there. Moriori (talk) 20:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- My point is that the coffee article doesn't discuss specific legal cases pertaining to safety and I don't think this article should do so either. I think we should simply leave it at the general statement that e-cigarettes have been known to explode. Sizeofint (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps then you would add that general statement to the article? Moriori (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- It is in the safety section. QuackGuru (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- The general statement that "e-cigarettes have been known to explode" does not appear in the safety section. Battery explosions are, but no e-cig explosions. Moriori (talk) 20:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- It is in the safety section. QuackGuru (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps then you would add that general statement to the article? Moriori (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- My point is that the coffee article doesn't discuss specific legal cases pertaining to safety and I don't think this article should do so either. I think we should simply leave it at the general statement that e-cigarettes have been known to explode. Sizeofint (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Going back to my question above, which you didn't answer -- "Do you think she caused it to explode?" The answer is no. Was the hot coffee lady in any way responsible for her burns? The answer is yes, and the court ruled so. No analogy there. Moriori (talk) 20:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- See Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants. I see the cases as analogous. Sizeofint (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- The safety section is a WP:SUMMARY. The Safety of electronic cigarettes page is for detailed information on safety. QuackGuru (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Are there many Wikipedia editors who actually answer a question without strawmen? I'm not aware of the woman who spilt hot coffee on herself -- please provide a link. But I am aware a woman was badly burned by an exploding electronic cigarette. Do you think she caused it to explode? Moriori (talk) 01:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
One interesting fact is that the brand she used in 2013 was Vapcig. They do not sell car chargers.[16] This source describes the problem of pluging it into a cigarette lighter in a car.[17] Its the same as any device powered by a lithium ion battery including cell phones. I think we already cover the possibility of this happening on the safety page.AlbinoFerret 19:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- User:Moriori, see McDonald's legal cases. What is next? Electronic cigarette legal cases? QuackGuru (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Um, how could a page dedicated to e-cig legal cases in any way have relevance to my question above which was "Should we briefly mention this in the safety section" of the article? Moriori (talk) 20:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- I was not trying to answer your specific question. There is Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants. Therefore, there could be "Jennifer Ries v. VapCigs" if there is enough sources. QuackGuru (talk) 20:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Um, how could a page dedicated to e-cig legal cases in any way have relevance to my question above which was "Should we briefly mention this in the safety section" of the article? Moriori (talk) 20:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- That would be a very small page, and this is the first case reported, per the source I pointed to before. That source also points out that it is included in the 2014 report on e-cigarette fires and explosions by the U.S. Fire Administration that is already in the safety article.AlbinoFerret 20:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- User:Moriori, see McDonald's legal cases. What is next? Electronic cigarette legal cases? QuackGuru (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
A few primary studies not for inclusion
Flavours added to e-cigarette liquids at high levels
Search for review. See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25877377 QuackGuru (talk) 06:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- QG - you are off the deep-end. As wikipedian's we present topics the way that the weight of the secondary literature presents it to us. We most certainly do not look for tidbids in the primary literature, and then cherry-pick material from secondary sources, to include that primary material! That is gaming the system, synthesis and clear and present WP:POV problem. --Kim D. Petersen 07:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Pyrazines increase addiction to e-cigarettes
Search for review. See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26063608 Note. Pyrazines are added to e-cigarette liquids to reduce the harsh flavour, but this chemical increases addiction to e-cigarettes, making it difficult to quit using e-cigarettes.[18] QuackGuru (talk) 06:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Are you going off on a tangent that has very little WP:WEIGHT in the literature? In fact as far as i can see, it has no weight at all. And why are you presenting primary material here? Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a platform for our own personal views. --Kim D. Petersen 07:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- This is the wildest OR! The paper has one paragraph on "ENDS", which has a couple of sentences on them, and then talks about "smoking" and smokers rather than vapers. The only reference is to this Swedish list, apparently by a manufacturer, giving the ingredients of 2 flavours of zero nicotine e-liquid, which hardly supports their point, if any! Johnbod (talk) 12:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Notes
Searches for reviews in the future.[19][20] Both sources are not usable. I am only making a note here on the talk page for future reference for reviews to clarify the matter. Thanks.
Free radicals detected for the first time?[21] Lingua villosa nigra associated with e-cigarette use.?[22] Search for reviews in the future. QuackGuru (talk) 17:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Why are you making a new section - instead of responding in the previous two sections ..... about the very same thing!?
- We as Wikipedians do not search for reviews to support our points. What we do is write the topic in proportionally the same way that the secondary literature covers it. If you want to write articles that support your personal views - then write a blog! --Kim D. Petersen 18:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- And may i please remind you that primary studies and case studies - positive or negative are a no-go for Wikipedia? (per WP:MEDRS). --Kim D. Petersen 18:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Search for possible reviews later
New form of advertising on YouTube?[23] Ideas to reduce metals in e-cigarette vapor?[24] QuackGuru (talk) 02:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Metals emitted from e-cigarettes are NOT a reason for health concern: "Are Metals Emitted from Electronic Cigarettes a Reason for Health Concern? A Risk-Assessment Analysis of Currently Available Literature"--24.134.158.188 (talk) 09:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Interesting source
This may be of interest, its a review http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4598199/ .AlbinoFerret 05:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- Farsalinos, Konstantinos; LeHouezec, Jacques (2015). "Regulation in the face of uncertainty: the evidence on electronic nicotine delivery systems (e-cigarettes)". Risk Management and Healthcare Policy: 157. doi:10.2147/RMHP.S62116. ISSN 1179-1594. PMC 4598199. PMID 26457058.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link) - The impact factor is zero. QuackGuru (talk) 05:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- Impact factor, while important isnt a clear reason to not use it. The author is also the author of other reviews we are using. There is more in it than just medical claims, it also addresses regulation and usage. AlbinoFerret 05:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- In addition to it being a zero impact journal, the authors have a potential COI. See "A small minority of KEF’s studies were performed using unrestricted funds provided to the institution (Onassis Cardiac Surgery Center) by e-cigarette companies. JLH has received speaker honoraria and consultancy fees from Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Pfizer, and Pierre Fabre."[25]
- They are contradicting many high-quality reviews. Some of the reviews by the authors are grandfathered in but moving forwarding we should try to be cautious of non-neutral sourcing. There is plenty of information about regulation and usage from neutral sources. QuackGuru (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- Excuse me? Do we dump papers by scientists who have at some point in their careers done research for the pharmaceutical industry... because they might have a "potential COI"? Do we start now to figure out which papers that should be chucked? Because we need to do so, if COI of this kind is considered. --Kim D. Petersen 19:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- Framing legitimate criticism as "dumping papers" doesn't do anything to make this paper less biases. This is not potential COI - that phrase is in the disclosure section of the paper. Also there is an enormous difference between a low impact factor journal and a zero impact factor journal. CFCF 💌 📧 21:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- I was reacting to a particular aspect of the "criticism". A particular aspect that has no relevance here, as other than a Red herring, the COI referenced is not something that has impact on the paper. The COI aspect as used in QG's commentary is thus not legitimate criticism - sorry. --Kim D. Petersen 22:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- Funding is not a reason to discredit sources, especially when they are not directly provided to the author. While it may have a zero impact factor, there are non medical uses for this paper. AlbinoFerret 21:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- I tried another impact factor search.[26] and the journal doesnt seem to be listed. Is it possible that the zero reflects its not listed? AlbinoFerret 21:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- After posting that I did a google scholar search.[27] Impact factor is based on the amount of times a journal is cited. Either its not listed or the searches are broken, because the articles in the journal have been cited a lot. AlbinoFerret 22:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- Framing legitimate criticism as "dumping papers" doesn't do anything to make this paper less biases. This is not potential COI - that phrase is in the disclosure section of the paper. Also there is an enormous difference between a low impact factor journal and a zero impact factor journal. CFCF 💌 📧 21:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- Excuse me? Do we dump papers by scientists who have at some point in their careers done research for the pharmaceutical industry... because they might have a "potential COI"? Do we start now to figure out which papers that should be chucked? Because we need to do so, if COI of this kind is considered. --Kim D. Petersen 19:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- Impact factor, while important isnt a clear reason to not use it. The author is also the author of other reviews we are using. There is more in it than just medical claims, it also addresses regulation and usage. AlbinoFerret 05:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Duplication and removal of well sourced material
The edit summary claims it was a review and there was no explanation for deleting the other text. This edit added duplication and removed well sourced material. I did summarise the same source with almost the identical wording in another section. See Electronic_cigarette#Positions_of_medical_organizations. See Electronic_cigarette#cite_ref-McNeill201576_84-0. QuackGuru (talk) 18:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)