AlbinoFerret (talk | contribs) |
AlbinoFerret (talk | contribs) |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 267: | Line 267: | ||
:::::::You didnt remove duplication. You removed a sourced claim that did not exist from that source in the article, and moved the rest back to the place Quack moved it. This is in disagreement with the above discussion, and even if the above discussion could be said to be no consensus (thougfh I dont see how 3 against the move vs 1 or 2 is), that no consensus was for the move Quack made. [[User:AlbinoFerret|<span style="color:white; background-color:#534545; font-weight: bold; font-size: 90%;">AlbinoFerret</span>]] 01:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC) |
:::::::You didnt remove duplication. You removed a sourced claim that did not exist from that source in the article, and moved the rest back to the place Quack moved it. This is in disagreement with the above discussion, and even if the above discussion could be said to be no consensus (thougfh I dont see how 3 against the move vs 1 or 2 is), that no consensus was for the move Quack made. [[User:AlbinoFerret|<span style="color:white; background-color:#534545; font-weight: bold; font-size: 90%;">AlbinoFerret</span>]] 01:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC) |
||
::::::::I disagree. Seems to me the source is much the same, as is the sourcing, as is the content. I was careful not to remove the source. I removed the duplicate. If you want two citations to much the same source with much the same content, please feel free to explain how that would improve the article and see if consensus emerges for it. [[User:Cloudjpk|Cloudjpk]] ([[User talk:Cloudjpk|talk]]) 04:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC) |
::::::::I disagree. Seems to me the source is much the same, as is the sourcing, as is the content. I was careful not to remove the source. I removed the duplicate. If you want two citations to much the same source with much the same content, please feel free to explain how that would improve the article and see if consensus emerges for it. [[User:Cloudjpk|Cloudjpk]] ([[User talk:Cloudjpk|talk]]) 04:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::Thats easy, we do not have these specific claims in the Harm reduction section, since you moved them and removed one of them. The specific information is Harm reduction related. [[User:AlbinoFerret|<span style="color:white; background-color:#534545; font-weight: bold; font-size: 90%;">AlbinoFerret</span>]] 06:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC) |
:::::::::Thats easy, we do not have these specific claims in the Harm reduction section, since you moved them and removed one of them. The specific information is Harm reduction related. By moving them together you created the problem you want to fix. [[User:AlbinoFerret|<span style="color:white; background-color:#534545; font-weight: bold; font-size: 90%;">AlbinoFerret</span>]] 06:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC) |
||
== RFC Are these sources the same? == |
== RFC Are these sources the same? == |
Revision as of 06:40, 30 October 2015
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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. [1] 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".[2] 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".[2] 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."[3] and "There is nothing wrong with rephrasing the information."[4] 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."[3] and "There is nothing wrong with rephrasing the information."[4] 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.[5] 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;"[6] 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[7][8][9] 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.[10] Of course some first generation e-cigarettes look different than a tobacco cigarette. QuackGuru (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Really? Look here [11]. 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 [11]. 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.[10] 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.[12] AlbinoFerret 00:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- A black cigalike or a yellow cigalike does not look very similar to a traditional cigarette.[13] 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.[14] 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.[15] This source describes the problem of pluging it into a cigarette lighter in a car.[16] 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.[17] 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.[18][19] 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?[20] Lingua villosa nigra associated with e-cigarette use.?[21] 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?[22] Ideas to reduce metals in e-cigarette vapor?[23] 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)
- That paper's already obsolete anyway. Only ancient cigalikes use soldered joints.--AttackOfTheSnailDemons (talk) 02:50, 16 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."[24]
- 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.[25] 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.[26] 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)
- It is a review, and it makes the other text obsolete.--AttackOfTheSnailDemons (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- Again? Really? We were there before and it's better than just a review - It's a review of reviews, critically evaluating and summarizing existing literature.--TMCk (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- I agree, its more than just a review, not just a "report" it has critical evaluations and cites sources rather well. AlbinoFerret 20:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- What about the duplication? QuackGuru (talk) 20:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- As it's safety information it makes sense to remove it from "Positions of medical organizations" and have it under "Safety".--AttackOfTheSnailDemons (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- There is other information at Electronic cigarette#Positions of medical organizations that is about safety. The "Positions of medical organizations" is a summary of the main article for positions of organisations. QuackGuru (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, the whole article needs a rewrite to make it coherent.--AttackOfTheSnailDemons (talk) 21:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- That's not an explanation for doing this. That text is very coherent using reviews and other sources such as WP:MEDORG complaint sources. QuackGuru (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Getting rid of any overlap that gives even a smidgen of coherence isn't going to achieve that. CFCF 💌 📧 21:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- AttackOfTheSnailDemons, you also deleting useful material that is still relevant. QuackGuru (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- When the world's largest health organization says "They're 95% safer than smoking", vague worries are no longer relevant.--AttackOfTheSnailDemons (talk) 22:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- WP:MEDORG does not mention Public Health England. They are not the most authoritative. QuackGuru (talk) 02:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- We've been round this before - they are very authoritative, and the authors of the report leading researchers. The Nutt estimate they use was also produced by a large group of experts, though all the figures produced by any sources remain pure estimates. Don't forget that we are never going to get RCT evidence on this point, and the best evidence from epidemiology will take 20+ years to emerge. Most of the "reviews" are just shrugging their shoulders and saying "dunno". The (old) text is the usual piled-up heap of points that half-repeat and half-contradict each other without any balance or explanation, and very far from "coherent". The new text is probably a bit too drastic, but we should thin out the old considerably. Johnbod (talk) 04:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- There was no "new text". This sentence is already summarised in the article. WHO is very authoritative but we don't delete or ignore other sources. The text for safety has been continuously updated in the lede and body with new reviews.
- There is balance. See "One review found, from limited data, their safety risk is similar to that of smokeless tobacco, which has about 1% of the mortality risk of traditional cigarettes.[19]" The text suggests vaping is more than 95% safer than smoking when the risk is only 1% that of smoking. QuackGuru (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- We've been round this before - they are very authoritative, and the authors of the report leading researchers. The Nutt estimate they use was also produced by a large group of experts, though all the figures produced by any sources remain pure estimates. Don't forget that we are never going to get RCT evidence on this point, and the best evidence from epidemiology will take 20+ years to emerge. Most of the "reviews" are just shrugging their shoulders and saying "dunno". The (old) text is the usual piled-up heap of points that half-repeat and half-contradict each other without any balance or explanation, and very far from "coherent". The new text is probably a bit too drastic, but we should thin out the old considerably. Johnbod (talk) 04:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- WP:MEDORG does not mention Public Health England. They are not the most authoritative. QuackGuru (talk) 02:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- When the world's largest health organization says "They're 95% safer than smoking", vague worries are no longer relevant.--AttackOfTheSnailDemons (talk) 22:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, the whole article needs a rewrite to make it coherent.--AttackOfTheSnailDemons (talk) 21:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- There is other information at Electronic cigarette#Positions of medical organizations that is about safety. The "Positions of medical organizations" is a summary of the main article for positions of organisations. QuackGuru (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- As it's safety information it makes sense to remove it from "Positions of medical organizations" and have it under "Safety".--AttackOfTheSnailDemons (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- What about the duplication? QuackGuru (talk) 20:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- I agree, its more than just a review, not just a "report" it has critical evaluations and cites sources rather well. AlbinoFerret 20:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- Again? Really? We were there before and it's better than just a review - It's a review of reviews, critically evaluating and summarizing existing literature.--TMCk (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I Think your right Johnbod. AlbinoFerret 04:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- The other text is not old and the 95% claim belongs in the section with the positions of other organisations. QuackGuru (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- Noone has argues against hat Public Health England is authorative-they just aren't the most authorative and it all needs to be balanced against the WHO etc. who are more authorative. CFCF 💌 📧 20:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- I find this comment interesting. What exactly makes the FCTC (WHO) more authoritative than PHE? You are aware that the FCTC is not a medical, but a political branch of the WHO - right? And that they make no scientific assessments themselves. So please explain. --Kim D. Petersen 22:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- CFCF has hit the nail on the head. This one source hardly obviates all others. Cloudjpk (talk) 22:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think i said anything of the sort... but if you can explain why the FCTC would be more authoritative that PHE please? --Kim D. Petersen 22:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- See here. WP:MEDORG lists WHO not PHE. QuackGuru (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- Not an answer QG - it is not even an attempt at one. FCTC is a policy arm - not a science arm, while PHE is a science/research arm. So at least make an attempt. --Kim D. Petersen 23:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- The reason WP:MEDORG doesnt list it is the page is two years out of date. It does list the British National Health Service. Looking at the Public Health England page we find that it was formed in 2013 in a reorganization of the British National Health Service. It is part of the Department of Health in the United Kingdom. It is very much a major medical organization as described in WP:MEDORG and should be listed. It looks like a combination of the FDA and CDC. AlbinoFerret 00:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Not an answer QG - it is not even an attempt at one. FCTC is a policy arm - not a science arm, while PHE is a science/research arm. So at least make an attempt. --Kim D. Petersen 23:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- See here. WP:MEDORG lists WHO not PHE. QuackGuru (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think i said anything of the sort... but if you can explain why the FCTC would be more authoritative that PHE please? --Kim D. Petersen 22:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- CFCF has hit the nail on the head. This one source hardly obviates all others. Cloudjpk (talk) 22:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- I find this comment interesting. What exactly makes the FCTC (WHO) more authoritative than PHE? You are aware that the FCTC is not a medical, but a political branch of the WHO - right? And that they make no scientific assessments themselves. So please explain. --Kim D. Petersen 22:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- Noone has argues against hat Public Health England is authorative-they just aren't the most authorative and it all needs to be balanced against the WHO etc. who are more authorative. CFCF 💌 📧 20:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
No, WHO is not more authoritative because we list them, but exactly the other way around – they are known to be very authoritative and are therefore listed. In general the WHO's opinion is of greater weight than that of any national body, and as for adding PHE to the guidelines: it is a far smaller organization than the NHS (which still gives out plenty of authorative recommendations) and does not need to be added.
(As for the FCTC being a policy arm of the WHO that is irrelevant, it is policy based on medical knowledge and is under no circumstance distinct from the rest of the WHO. Neither are they the only WHO division to publishe information about smoking etc.)
To rehash once more; PHE's report is valuable and should be presented in this article, but it does not trump other reports – especially not those from more authoritative organizations. CFCF 💌 📧 12:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't believe the NHS makes its "authorative recommendations" on public health issues any more, as the people who covered that are now mostly in PHE after the reorganization. No doubt there is some overlap. Johnbod (talk) 11:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think you are correct. PHE is the science branch, and the NHS the warm hands one. And to back that up, the NHS now is in the process of changing their pages on e-cigs - like for instance[27], which means that we probably should update our NHS info on this and other articles. --Kim D. Petersen 15:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't believe the NHS makes its "authorative recommendations" on public health issues any more, as the people who covered that are now mostly in PHE after the reorganization. No doubt there is some overlap. Johnbod (talk) 11:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- As for the FCTC being a policy arm of the WHO that is irrelevant, it is policy based on medical knowledge and is under no circumstance distinct from the rest of the WHO <- this is incorrect. The FCTC is a subpart of the WHO, and not part of the medical branch. The FCTC is governed/run not by doctors/medical expertise, but instead by governmental and NGO consensus - and they are not there to provide medical information, but to guide a intergovernmental political solution to the FCTC treaty. Which amongst other things include lobbying, advisory on taxation and other non-medical processes. Thus they are quite distinct from other branches of the WHO. They do not have any medical or research requirements... That part of the process (the science part) has already been done - what they do is guide the war on smoking - which is entirely political CFCF! --Kim D. Petersen 13:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- As an example - i would say that the surgeon generals report (SGR) on smoking is a significantly more authoritative document on smoking than anything that the WHO has put out. Simply because that is that the SGR is supposed to summarize the science, while the FCTC is supposed to guide the legislative process. --Kim D. Petersen 13:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- It is correct, otherwise it would not be a part of the WHO. The WHO's various bodies are all tied together and its policy bodies communicate with the other bodies extensively. Also I stated that the FCTC is not the only body of the WHO to present reports on tobacco use, and as far as I'm aware we're not even talking about the FCTC. CFCF 💌 📧 10:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- If you don't know that we are talking about the FCTC here, then i suspect that you haven't looked into this subject at all, or checked the RS. The report was specifically produced for the FCTC by outside consultants - the Grana paper was/is the base. --Kim D. Petersen 15:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- I btw. would very much like an RS that verifies your assertion that the FCTC is tightly bound into the WHO - especially since that normally isn't the case for such treaty commissions within the UN framework... normally the umbrella-organization just delivers the secretariat etc. An example at the top of my mind is the IPCC under WMO. --Kim D. Petersen 15:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- No, we are speaking generally about a number of WHO-reports, one of which is produced by the FCTC. I never mentioned that specific report in any of my comments, which were meant to be very general. But to be explicit we do not need a source for the fact that an auxiliary branch of the World Health Organization builds its policy suggestions upon medical knowledge, that is ridiculous. CFCF 💌 📧 16:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Actually we are only talking about one FCTC (WHO) report (we're only using one, which other WHO report are you talking about?), which is clearly marked FCTC. The claim of yours that authority(FCTC)>authority(PHE). And the claim that FCTC is tightly integrated into the WHO, and not as i noted above a treaty organization under the umbrella of the WHO. --Kim D. Petersen 17:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- A treaty organization under the umbrella of the WHO is clearly tightly integrated, and I think the burden of evidence lies on you to prove otherwise. From my first comment I was speaking generally of the WHO, and the fact that this specific report is from a specific branch is irrelevant. CFCF 💌 📧 17:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Nope. A treaty organization is not "clearly tightly integrated". That is an assertion that you would have to back up, especially since other such treaty orgs. under UN umbrellas regularly aren't. From experience with other such organizations, this is usually not the case. And finally: Where a report is produced is just as important, as it is to know which particular journal publishes a paper. --Kim D. Petersen 19:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- A treaty organization under the umbrella of the WHO is clearly tightly integrated, and I think the burden of evidence lies on you to prove otherwise. From my first comment I was speaking generally of the WHO, and the fact that this specific report is from a specific branch is irrelevant. CFCF 💌 📧 17:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Actually we are only talking about one FCTC (WHO) report (we're only using one, which other WHO report are you talking about?), which is clearly marked FCTC. The claim of yours that authority(FCTC)>authority(PHE). And the claim that FCTC is tightly integrated into the WHO, and not as i noted above a treaty organization under the umbrella of the WHO. --Kim D. Petersen 17:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- No, we are speaking generally about a number of WHO-reports, one of which is produced by the FCTC. I never mentioned that specific report in any of my comments, which were meant to be very general. But to be explicit we do not need a source for the fact that an auxiliary branch of the World Health Organization builds its policy suggestions upon medical knowledge, that is ridiculous. CFCF 💌 📧 16:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- It is correct, otherwise it would not be a part of the WHO. The WHO's various bodies are all tied together and its policy bodies communicate with the other bodies extensively. Also I stated that the FCTC is not the only body of the WHO to present reports on tobacco use, and as far as I'm aware we're not even talking about the FCTC. CFCF 💌 📧 10:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
It is not there position statement
It is not there position statement. Therefore, it does not not updating. It is there campaign website. QuackGuru (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- It looks like the page has been updated. Since it has, and its not duplicative, it can be used for other claims. AlbinoFerret 18:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- It says "Smokefree is a public health campaign initiated and supported by Public Health England, an executive agency of the Department of Health". It is there public health campaign page not a position statement. QuackGuru (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Are we going to go through the articles and remove all the claims from government websites? There are a lot of them. AlbinoFerret 19:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- It says "Smokefree is a public health campaign initiated and supported by Public Health England, an executive agency of the Department of Health". It is there public health campaign page not a position statement. QuackGuru (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Funny that you say so. Because the current NHS link is not to a position statement either. (ref #22 in the Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes) And i'm rather certain that you were the person adding that link to the pos article. --Kim D. Petersen 19:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Let me get this straight. Quack says it is not a position statement but then adds this to the Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes article?--TMCk (talk) 20:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Duplicate claim using public health campaign page
We already state "In 2015, the Public Health England released a report stating that e-cigarettes are estimated to be 95% less harmful than smoking,[84] using a position statement. Now we are adding a very similar claim "They have also stated that e-ciagrettes cause approximately 5% of the harm of conventional tobacco cigarettes."[28] What is the purpose of the duplication? QuackGuru (talk) 19:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Its another source from NHS, the website is NHS, I just clarified that in the claim. Thanks for the source QG. AlbinoFerret 19:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Harm reduction is about lowering risk of harm
The edit that moves it to the Positions section is wrong. It should be in Harm reduction as its about lowering the risk of harm. AlbinoFerret 20:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- I agree. The reason i changed "harm" to "risk" in accordance with the RS, was because it indicated that there was 5% harm involved. Ie. there is a risk of harm, but not solid evidence for harm. A figure of risk would normally be set more conservatively to incorporate unknowns. --Kim D. Petersen 20:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- There are other statements about less harm but since they are statements from organizations we add them to the proper place. See "In a joint statement in 2015, Public Health England and other UK medical organizations stated that "e-cigarettes are significantly less harmful than smoking."[83] for another statement. See Electronic cigarette#Positions of medical organizations. I think when there is a review that make such a statement or similar statements we can add it to the harm reduction section. I added the same claim to the main article. QuackGuru (talk) 20:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree and placing it in the Positions statements is the wrong place. The claim is specifically about harm reduction. AlbinoFerret 20:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- So now a lower risk is not (anymore) related to harm reduction? Really?--TMCk (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- It is specifically about the risk (safety) according to WP:V and how is it not appropriate for the section "Positions of medical organizations" for claims made by organisations when it is a statement made by an organisation. I'm not sure if it is an official statement. If it is just a public health campaign website it might be unreliable. I think the tag was a mistake because we are already using a source from the same website. Now have two sources from the same website next to each other. QuackGuru (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Risk of what? AlbinoFerret 20:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- QuackGuru, please answer the question, risk of what? AlbinoFerret 04:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- It is 5% of the risk of tobacco cigarettes. According to the source it is about safety. See "The British National Health Service have stated in 2015 that e-cigarettes have approximately 5% of the risk of tobacco cigarettes.[22] They found that their safety won't be fully known for many years.[22]" QuackGuru (talk) 04:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- In what way? Let me tell you, risk of harm. AlbinoFerret 04:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- It is 5% of the risk of tobacco cigarettes. According to the source it is about safety. See "The British National Health Service have stated in 2015 that e-cigarettes have approximately 5% of the risk of tobacco cigarettes.[22] They found that their safety won't be fully known for many years.[22]" QuackGuru (talk) 04:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- It is specifically about the risk (safety) according to WP:V and how is it not appropriate for the section "Positions of medical organizations" for claims made by organisations when it is a statement made by an organisation. I'm not sure if it is an official statement. If it is just a public health campaign website it might be unreliable. I think the tag was a mistake because we are already using a source from the same website. Now have two sources from the same website next to each other. QuackGuru (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- There are other statements about less harm but since they are statements from organizations we add them to the proper place. See "In a joint statement in 2015, Public Health England and other UK medical organizations stated that "e-cigarettes are significantly less harmful than smoking."[83] for another statement. See Electronic cigarette#Positions of medical organizations. I think when there is a review that make such a statement or similar statements we can add it to the harm reduction section. I added the same claim to the main article. QuackGuru (talk) 20:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Duplication and misplaced text
In 2015 a report commissioned by Public Health England concluded that e-cigarettes "release negligible levels of nicotine into ambient air with no identified health risks to bystanders".[96] This is duplication from the same organisation and it is misplaced text. It is mainly about safety. QuackGuru (talk) 04:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- No it isnt, its from the same NHS website, not PHE, and the discussion above said that it was better in Harm reduction. AlbinoFerret 04:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- See "Smokefree is a public health campaign initiated and supported by Public Health England, an executive agency of the Department of Health"[29] To be clear NHS was initiated by PHE. Is there a reseaon to keep the duplication. QuackGuru (talk) 05:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- It is not a duplicate, it is not from PHE https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england. It is on the NHS website http://www.nhs.uk. While PHE may support them, its support and not a duplicate. AlbinoFerret 05:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- Even if it were from the same agency, its a different source. We dont disqualify multiple sources from anyone else anywhere else.AlbinoFerret 13:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- Seems like duplicate material from much the same source to much the same effect Cloudjpk (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- That is incorrect. And the removal was against consensus above. AlbinoFerret 21:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- One is already on the page. You're welcome to attempt to build consensus for including both. Cloudjpk (talk) 22:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- You didnt remove duplication. You removed a sourced claim that did not exist from that source in the article, and moved the rest back to the place Quack moved it. This is in disagreement with the above discussion, and even if the above discussion could be said to be no consensus (thougfh I dont see how 3 against the move vs 1 or 2 is), that no consensus was for the move Quack made. AlbinoFerret 01:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree. Seems to me the source is much the same, as is the sourcing, as is the content. I was careful not to remove the source. I removed the duplicate. If you want two citations to much the same source with much the same content, please feel free to explain how that would improve the article and see if consensus emerges for it. Cloudjpk (talk) 04:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thats easy, we do not have these specific claims in the Harm reduction section, since you moved them and removed one of them. The specific information is Harm reduction related. By moving them together you created the problem you want to fix. AlbinoFerret 06:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree. Seems to me the source is much the same, as is the sourcing, as is the content. I was careful not to remove the source. I removed the duplicate. If you want two citations to much the same source with much the same content, please feel free to explain how that would improve the article and see if consensus emerges for it. Cloudjpk (talk) 04:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- You didnt remove duplication. You removed a sourced claim that did not exist from that source in the article, and moved the rest back to the place Quack moved it. This is in disagreement with the above discussion, and even if the above discussion could be said to be no consensus (thougfh I dont see how 3 against the move vs 1 or 2 is), that no consensus was for the move Quack made. AlbinoFerret 01:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- One is already on the page. You're welcome to attempt to build consensus for including both. Cloudjpk (talk) 22:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- That is incorrect. And the removal was against consensus above. AlbinoFerret 21:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- Seems like duplicate material from much the same source to much the same effect Cloudjpk (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- See "Smokefree is a public health campaign initiated and supported by Public Health England, an executive agency of the Department of Health"[29] To be clear NHS was initiated by PHE. Is there a reseaon to keep the duplication. QuackGuru (talk) 05:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
RFC Are these sources the same?
There has been removal of a referenced claim from the article.[30] During a move the claim "and there is relatively low risk to others from the vapor." The edit comments says "remove duplication". There is a talk page section on the topic found here.[31].
The sources in question Smokefree site and Health England Report
Policies that control WP:VER WP:RS and WP:MEDRS AlbinoFerret 06:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)