Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 → Archive 10

Electronic or electric

See [1] "Inside the e-cigarette’s polycarbonate tube casing is an integrated circuit, a small computer chip. Then comes a lithium-ion battery and a wick wrapped in cotton soaked in a mixture of nicotine and a carrier liquid of glycerol and propylene glycol."

I deleted the unsourced section about e-cigarettes not being electronic. Please cite a source which actually says they ought to be called "electric" if you wish top put it back. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I am trying to find good sources for the claim I made about e-cigs not being inherently electronic. Good sources are very hard to find since every journalists and "specialists" are only interested about the health effects of ecigs and the economic aspect of them, the technical aspect is always neglected and incomplete. The claim is still accurate though, electronic components are optional. A mechanical e-cig is exactly that: a "electronic-free" e-cigarette (therefore electric) and work just fine. Just a quick google search about mech modsand you will find tons of them. Anyways... I'm working on it. I will revert back when I find a good source. Thank you, TheNorlo (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Even pure mechanical mods in most cases have electronics, it is just located within the battery. But i'm a bit confused about what we are talking about here, on the one hand a good argument could be made for e-cigs not having to be electronic at all.. after all, all you need is a power source, some fluid and a wire to heat up the fluid... But then again the term 'electronic cigarette' is the WP:COMMONNAME that is used everywhere (and thus must also be used here). And most e-cigs do have an electronic package, if not for anything other than charging, surge-protection, timing etc. (thus not essential for functionality). We can have a section on pure-mechanical mods but it still is a niche market for enthusiasts :) --Kim D. Petersen 00:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree. Since they are nearly always electronic aside from some mods or DIYs, the fact they they don't necessarily need to be "electronic" per se is just a bit of trivia, and per WP:WEIGHT should probably not warrant much if any content here. equazcion → 01:03, 28 Oct 2013 (UTC)
The term "electronic cigarette" is here to stay, no doubt about that. I only wanted to point out in the article that e-cigs are not inherently electronic, it is not a must have, that's all. And about batteries, only protected cells uses electronic components. Not all mods uses protected batteries, none of mine actually. If we want to be über anal, battery operated ecigs should be called electrochemical-cigarettes :)TheNorlo (talk) 01:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok, we agree then. (sorry btw. for the bold, it really should've been ital.). --Kim D. Petersen 01:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Yup, we agree. You are right, it is trivial and e-cigs without electronics like mechs are, as of now, a niche market. I will however rephrase the paragraph that was deleted as I think that there was pertinent information about the electronic behavior of most e-cigs, like voltage regulation, amp limitation and battery protection.TheNorlo (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

outdated article

This article focuses only on old cigarette styled e-cigs and ignores popular bigger battery PV's that looks nothing like a regular smoke. I will try to update it a little bit. I will add some references later on. TheNorlo (talk) 07:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

This isnt so much a product of the article being old. It's more because the average person is unaware of the online enthusiast market, even though heavy users consider them to be the true e-cigarettes. Most reliable sources still predominately focus on big-brand in-store consumer devices. equazcion → 16:21, 27 Oct 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. Most of the media coverage uses images of cigarette-styled devices – see this very recent article in The New York Times which opens with this image. The particular phenomenon of a highly enthusiastic user base and its preferences remain a side issue in the fundamental debate. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually i would consider the EGO style e-cig to be the most common one on the market by now (although i haven't looked for refs). I haven't seen a cig-a-like in rather a long time (except in some not very well stocked cig stores). The media is slow to catch on, and they also go for what the non-vapers "understand" as a cigarette. Part of the EU campaign on the pro-e-cig side was to inform the MEP's that e-cigs are not cig-a-likes. But the american market might be different. --Kim D. Petersen 01:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
(just as a sidenote here (anecdotal i know)): We have 4 e-cig shops in my town, 1 is for enthusiasts the 3 others are mainstream shops - all of them have their main sell as being EGO's with some sort of clearomizer on them... most of them do stock some version of a cig-a-like, but it is not their main sell. So it is not "enthusiast" equipment. I would consider the VV/VW tubes to be mostly enthusiast though. --Kim D. Petersen 02:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree with you. I rarely see people using cig-a-likes... And we know why: They suck!. So people often start vaping with them and then quickly move on to better things. I see eGo's all the time now. They are becoming the norm.TheNorlo (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

More straightforwrard?

I disagree that "likely safer than smoking tobacco" is more straightforward than "the scientific consensus is that they are likely much safer than smoking tobacco." In fact it's less informative.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 03:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

We do not use blogs as refs typically. What evidence do you have that this is scientific consensus? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't use it if it was a personal blog, but it's a university-run one by a health professional. The evidence of a consensus is that not one study has suggested that e-cigs may be anywhere near as harmful as smoked tobacco.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 03:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
The term "scientific consensus" in the quote "the scientific consensus is that they are likely much safer than smoking tobacco" is vague (and a WP:WEASEL phrase), which is, in part, why the former is better wording for that text. I also agree with JMH that a blog isn't a suitable MEDRS source, regardless of who authors it. Seppi333 (talk) 03:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
+1 regarding blogs. Secondary sources in peer review journals or mainstream textbooks please. Lesion (talk) 11:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't matter what kind of blog it is. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Edits

Have reverted FergusM edits here [2]. "they are likely safer than smoking tobacco" is of greater encyclopedic tone than "the scientific consensus is that they are likely to be much safer than smoking tobacco" A blog is also not suitable ref.

Secondly not sure why the content on addition concerns were removed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

How is it of "greater encyclopaedic tone"? It's more vague! Also I removed the addiction "concerns" because that section is for health effects, and a "concern" is not a health effect. By all means put it back when there's evidence that non-smokers are becoming nicotine addicted thanks to e-cigs, but right now that is not happening. We have already had lengthy discussions on the difference between a health effect and a "concern."--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 03:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Addiction is a health problem. And thus health effects would be the section to discuss it in.
The previous wording was more direct IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Addiction is a health problem. A "concern" about hypothetical addiction is not.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 03:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
OK. If somebody at CDC expresses "concerns" that eating broccoli makes people grow hair and howl at the full moon, do we then list lycanthropy as a health effect of broccoli? No, we don't. So why should "concerns" about addiction be listed as a health effect of e-cigs when ALL the research says that non-smokers are not using them?? There is no evidence that anyone has become addicted to nicotine through e-cig use, so how can it be a health effect of e-cigs?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 03:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes if the CDC came out with a press release stating that broccoli make people grow hair and howl at the moon we would include this under the health effects of broccoli. The CDC press release raises the concern of addition [3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Would you include it under the health effects of broccoli even if a study showed that there was no correlation whatsoever between broccoli consumption and lycanthropy?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 03:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes and we do this for other topics. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
A number of other organizations also raise concerns "Government agencies and medical organizations, such as the FDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the American Academy of Pediatrics have also expressed concern that electronic cigarettes could increase nicotine addiction and tobacco use in young people."[4]. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't care who has expressed "concerns." Before it belongs in the Health Effects section I want to see evidence that it's happening, to set against the considerable evidence that it is not happening. Once more: A "concern" is not a health effect. It is only a "concern." It is contradicted by all the available evidence. Why is it so important to you to keep this unfounded speculation in the article?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 03:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Some of the evidence is this [5]. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I've read it. What do you think it's evidence of?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 03:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
So you are arguing that nicotine is not addictive? Or that nicotine addiction via e-cigs will not lead lead to these addicts using convention cigs? Or that all users of e-cigs are already addictions / already smoke regular cigs? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Strawman fallacy. I did not say that nicotine isn't addictive. However the reference you gave says absolutely NOTHING about whether or not anyone is actually becoming addicted. What percentage of e-cig users are already smokers? We can't tell from the CDC study, because they didn't ask how many of the subjects are users. All they asked was how many have ever tried them, which is not the same thing. ASH, on the other hand, did ask. The percentage of non-smoking teens who use e-cigs? 0%. As for the suggestion that e-cig use could lead to smoking, it's too ridiculous to even consider.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 03:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Neuroplastic alterations in dopaminergic histology would inevitably occur from frequent nicotine exposure due to the cholinergic-dopaminergic reward link that's mediated by neuropeptide ghrelin (the link is mentioned in that article). That's the same mechanism by which dopaminergics like amphetamine exert effects on acetylcholine neurotransmission. It's well documented in this review: PMID 21354264. Seppi333 (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
So what? Show me some evidence that non-smokers are getting frequent nicotine exposure from e-cigs and becoming addicted. Bet you can't, because that evidence doesn't exist. Contrary evidence, on the other hand, does exist and has been cited.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 03:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
The paper I just linked for you states that in not so many words. Seppi333 (talk) 03:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
No. It doesn't. In fact it doesn't seem to mention e-cigs at all.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 04:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Nor does it explicitly mention amphetamine, but both of those are included in the blanket term "drugs of abuse." Even if you disagree with nicotine being an abusable drug (which is absurd), read pages 81–82 and Fig. 1; nicotine directly acts on the associated receptors in that figure, whereas the mentioned examples (ex ethanol) only do so indirectly. Seppi333 (talk) 04:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
So what? I'm not saying that nicotine isn't addictive. I'm saying that there is no evidence of any risk that e-cigs will get non-smokers addicted. If there is any such evidence please produce it. Otherwise I don't think this silly speculation belongs in the Health Effects section. Sure, non-smokers could get addicted to nicotine if they became e-cig users, but they don't do that. It's just concern whoring.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 04:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not talking about e-cigs, as that's unnecessarily specific to a particular medium/route of nicotine administration. Your statements that nicotine isn't not addictive and e-cigs (nicotine) won't get non-smokers addicted (unqualified, this is inclusive of absurd doses of nicotine) together are a logical contradiction. Seppi333 (talk) 04:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
This article is about e-cigs, so I'd suggest that their non-inclusion in the paper is highly relevant. As for my statement there is no contradiction. Sure, non-smokers could get addicted to nicotine of they used e-cigs regularly - which according to all the evidence none of them do. Children could bleed to death if they hammered a pencil up their nose, but do we list that as a health risk of pencils? No, we don't, because it would be stupid. Saying that non-smokers risk addiction from a product they don't use is equally stupid.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 04:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Your reply was entirely non-sequitur to my comment, so I'm not really sure what you're trying to argue. In any event, wikipedia is built upon consensus, and at the moment, there are at least two editors (vs 1 in support) who dispute the (so far, non-MEDRS cited) claims of a lack of addictive properties of nicotine and hence e-cigs. Seppi333 (talk) 04:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Watch what you're saying. I have not claimed that nicotine is non-addictive, so kindly stop putting words in my mouth. Nor have I denied that a non-smoker could get addicted if they used e-cigs regularly. What I am saying - backed by evidence - is that non-smokers don't use them so the issue is irrelevant. I think you owe me an apology.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 04:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Actually, you did say that, and I pointed it out in the contradiction I just mentioned. Just an obvious reminder, even though you've constantly implied nicotine and e-cigs aren't the same drug, constant reassertions don't affect the truth of a claim. Emphatic assertion of a claim as evidence of a claim is just another logical fallacy. Here's another logical contradiction for you:

I'm saying that there is no evidence of any risk that e-cigs will get non-smokers addicted.
Sure, non-smokers could get addicted to nicotine if they became e-cig users
— You (FergusM1970)

No I did not say that. My PV is a heavy steel tube 8 inches long. I could easily bludgeon myself into unconsciousness with it. Does that mean that e-cigs present a concussion risk? No, it doesn't, because users don't beat themselves around the head with them. For the same reason they don't present an addiction risk to non-smokers, because non-smokers don't use them. With me yet?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 04:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
RE: Emphatic re-assertions of a claim as evidence of a claim does not affect the truth of the claim. (repetition fallacy) Seppi333 (talk) 04:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
And what's with the "you've constantly implied nicotine and e-cigs aren't the same drug" shite? E-cigs aren't a drug at all. I have one here with no nicotine in it. Can it be you're commenting on a subject you know nothing about? Answer please.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 04:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
You're full of contradictions today. =D RE: the second line of the above quote. I'm actually going to head off to sleep now, but I'd implore you to post some more of these responses so I can read them tomorrow morning for my amusement. Seppi333 (talk) 04:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
No, I have not contradicted myself. E-cigs only pose a risk of addiction if non-smokers are using them, which they are not. Now answer my question please: Are you trying to shape the slant of an article on a subject which, as is suggested by you calling e-cigs a "drug," you know absolutely nothing about?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 04:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


This article states "The study, published September 6, 2013 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, also found that 76% of current young e-cigarette users also smoked regular cigarettes" which means 24% of e-cig users do not smoke regular cigs. [6] What was your study that found zero percent again? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

24% don't smoke cigarettes. Well so what? Tell me: According to the CDC study, what percentage of young e-cig users have never smoked? Oh, wait, they didn't ask that, did they?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 04:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Here's the ASH study. http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_891.pdf --FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 04:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Was this peer reviewed and published? Or just self published? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Was the CDC one peer reviewed and published? Or just self published?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 04:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I take that as a no. The CDC paper was published in MMWR which is pubmed indexed. And the CDC is regarded as a much more reliable source than ASH. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Being indexed by a search engine =/= peer review, so irrelevant. ASH are generally regarded as a reliable source on tobacco control issues, not that e-cigs are relevant to tobacco control anyway.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 05:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Regardless well respect sources have concerns. We simply that that they have these concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Then create a "Concerns" section and stick it in there, but get it out of Health Effects because it isn't one.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 04:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Found it "In 2012, among ever e-cigarette users, 9.3% reported never smoking conventional cigarettes; among current e-cigarette users, 76.3% reported current conventional cigarette smoking." "In 2012, among middle school ever e-cigarette users, 20.3% reported never smoking conventional cigarettes; among middle school current e-cigarette users, 61.1% reported current conventional cigarette smoking." "In 2012, among high school ever e-cigarette users, 7.2% reported never smoking conventional cigarettes; among high school current e-cigarette users, 80.5% reported current conventional cigarette smoking." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

No, actually you're completely missing it. Ever-users includes people who tried e-cigs once, so let's discount that. What matters is those who became addicted, which should correspond closely with current users. Now, according to CDC's figures, what percentage of current e-cig users never smoked? Tell me please. If you can.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 04:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
...and no answer. Why not? Oh, because CDC do not say what percentage of young e-cig users have never smoked. That means either they didn't ask or they don't want to give the figure, which was found in a separate ASH study to be 0%.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 04:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
That using e cigs and never smoking occurs at a higher rate in the younger kids could raise concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Go on then. Tell me what percentage of young e-cig users have never smoked. ASH say 0%. What does CDC say?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 04:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

CDC says there are concerns and thus that is what we have in the article. I have requested further opinions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no objection to CDC's "concerns" being in the article. What I object to is them being under health effects, because "concerns" are not a health effect. Put addiction under health effects when you can show some evidence that it's occurring, but until then it looks an awful lot like deliberate scaremongering.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 04:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
It was raised above that 24% of e-cig users do not smoke conventional cigarettes. Given that e-cigs are often used, although not advertised as such, as a smoking cessation aid, that is not surprising. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. I don't smoke cigarettes - but I used to. What matters is the number of people who regularly use e-cigs - and therefore may be addicted to nicotine - who didn't previously smoke. CDC, for whatever reason, don't give that information. ASH do, and the answer is 0%.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 07:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Gateway to smoking

Here are some recent papers, found at de:Diskussion:Elektrische Zigarette#Die E-Zigarette als Einstieg zur Tabaksucht?, about the capacity of e-cigs as gatweay to regular tobacco smoking:

-- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any evidence of a gateway effect though, just the usual "concerns." Is there any reference that gives an actual real example of a non-smoker taking up vaping, then switching to smoking? If not then the gateway argument remains what it's been so far - scaremongering.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 07:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

This ref clearly documents that they are used by more than 0% of never smokers "Overall, 3.2% of never smoking students reported ever use of e-cigarettes." [7] And this ref states "Given that even experimentation with e-cigarettes could lead to nicotine dependence and subsequent use of other tobacco products, regulatory and behavioral interventions are needed to prevent "gateway" use by adolescent nonsmokers" [8] thus this text recently added is not true and is unreffed "although so far the evidence suggests that this is unlikely." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

No, it documents no such thing. It says that they have been TRIED by more than 0% of non-smokers. What percentage of current users are non-smokers according to the CDC's figures? Can you answer that? Also do you have any evidence that e-cig use does lead to use of tobacco products? Can you even suggest a credible reason why it might? Because nobody else has.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 11:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Look at what your ref says. "could lead to." Speculation. Not facts, not a health effect, just more "concern." Why would e-cig use lead to smoking? The idea is absurd. E-cigs are a gateway out of smoking, not into it.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 11:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
This ref says "It is unknown if the availability of ENDS serves to alter use of cigarettes among current smokers or leads to increased initiation among non-using youth. Nevertheless, there is concern that ENDS use may undermine social norms about tobacco (Mejia, Ling, & Glantz, 2010), serve as a starter product for cigarettes among youth, or delay smoking cessation among current adolescent" [9] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Hysterical nonsense. "ENDS" don't even contain tobacco, so how is this even vaguely relevant?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 11:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
So nicotine is addictive. People can become addicted via e cigs. E cigs may not however give a large enough dose or they may not be available or they may be too expensive so people try cigarettes.
There is not good evidence for or against it being a gateway drug to cigs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
WTF? E-cigs may be too expensive? I used to spend €10 a day on cigarettes. Now I spend €5 a week on liquid. Modern e-cigs easily match the nicotine delivery of cigarettes. This argument is ludicrous.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 11:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Do you have any credible reason why people might switch from a relatively safe, cheap method of nicotine delivery to one that's several times more expensive, stinks, tastes like burning leaves, is banned almost everywhere and kills 50% of users?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 12:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
People travel to a place were e-cigs not avaliable and cigs cost less than 50 cents a pack. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I said credible. I bought my first e-cig at a street market in Kabul. It's pretty hard to find somewhere they're not available. Anyway, guess what e-cig users do when they travel somewhere? They take their e-cig with them.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 12:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Citation Needed flags

{{fact}} Not bloody hard, is it?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 17:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

EC paper on tobacco additives

Is it bollocks OR. Does the source give the information I added to the article? Yes it does. This is not OR.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 23:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

If I don't get some explanation as to why I was accused of OR I'm taking this to an admin.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 23:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
OK, no explanation. Fine.
Adding information that's more or less a direct quote from a European Commission scientific report is not OR, and I regard the removal of my comment on those grounds as vandalism. Please don't do it again.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 23:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I made some edits

Comments? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The source is being used to support three separate claims. I don't see where that study supports the claim that "There is little data available on pure nicotine use by humans". I don't see where the source supports the claim that nicotine "has proven to be only weakly addictive in animal studies". (It says that "the addictiveness of nicotine is not directly linear with the dose", but that is not the same thing.) I do see that the report supports the claim that "Studies indicate that pure nicotine has a lower abuse liability than tobacco, which is highly addictive in both humans and animals." Can you show where the report supports the previous two claims? – Quadell (talk) 13:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Ah, but did you read it? All three claims are in there.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 04:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Both of the facts you can't find are in Para 3 of the executive summary, on the first page of the actual report.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 05:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, of course I read it. Paragraph 3 of the executive summary says "In humans, the positive correlation between tobacco consumption and dependence suggests that individuals with high nicotine levels in their blood are more dependent. In animal studies using self-administration, an inverted U-shaped dose-response curve has generally been revealed suggesting that the addictiveness of nicotine is not directly linear with the dose. There is however substantial variation in the response to nicotine in both animals and humans, and genetic factors probably play an important role."

None of that supports the claim that "There is little data available on pure nicotine use by humans", nor that nicotine "has proven to be only weakly addictive in animal studies". I'm glad that that section has been removed. – Quadell (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no idea what you're up to here. You claim that Para 3 of the executive summary doesn't support the claim that there is little data on pure nicotine use by humans. Not that I'm questioning your honesty or anything, but here's the first sentence of that paragraph, which you claim to have read: "In humans, there are little data available on pure nicotine use." Only six lines further down we find "As mentioned before, pure nicotine is only weakly addictive in animal studies." The claims are right there where I said they were.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 20:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you mean now. I was looking in paragraph 3 of the abstract (on page 4 of the report), which I quoted above. You were referring to section 3 of the executive summary (on page 9). It does indeed back up those statements, FWIW. (Now as for relevance to e-cigs, I see that's being debated elsewhere on this talk page.) – Quadell (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
The relevance is that nobody actually knows how addictive nicotine is when not delivered in a matrix of tobacco smoke. There is evidence that suggests the answer is "not very." If pure nicotine is substantially less addictive than tobacco that obviously affects the risk of non-smokers becoming addicted through e-cigs, if they were using them. Which they're not.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 20:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Addiction in existing addicts?

How can someone become addicted to nicotine through vaping if they are already addicted to nicotine through smoking? This seems to make no sense at all.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 07:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes one can stay addicted through vaping if already addicted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but they can't become addicted, can they? There is no risk of nicotine addiction to someone who's already addicted, which is what the article now appears to say.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 07:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Sure but we say "can result in nicotine addition" This can either be continued addition or new addiction. We do not say it is new addiction. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't strike me as being very clear. Why not say "Regular use of e-cigs can cause or maintain nicotine addiction in users."? Happy with that?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 07:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I'll add that the only one of the cited sources that specifically mentions e-cigs, as far as I can see, says explicitly that they pose a risk of addiction to non-smokers.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 07:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
OK, Seppi's claim that "Regular use of nicotine-containing e-cigarettes can result in nicotine addiction in any individual, regardless of past nicotine use." is back in the article again, despite the fact that none of the sources actually say this. Why??--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 22:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

What's going on here? (Ram Moorthy)

User:Lesion has just deleted the information that Ram Moorthy is from the BMA on the grounds that "Source states Ram Moorthy is from the BMA." WTF? Yes, I know he is. That's why I added that information to the article. What I'm not so clear on is why it was removed, apparently to conform to a talk page consensus that I don't see anywhere on the talk page.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 21:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, got confused apparently. I am still going to restore an earlier version however (with addition to non controversial BMA qualifer) because in addition to reverting Seppi in your earlier edit, you also reverted some edits by zad. The other changes need to be justified and a clear consensus established. It is inappropriate to keep changing the article when consensus is still evolving on the talk page. Your opinion's weight is not proportional to how much, or how loudly you shout others down. Indeed, you would present a much more convincing argument if you did not shout at all. Lesion (talk) 21:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I didn't intend to revert Zad's edits. I reverted Seppi's because he is repeatedly inserting something that the cited references do not actually say. In fact the only one that explicitly mentions e-cigs says they can cause nicotine addiction in non-smokers. Seppi's claim that they can cause nicotine addiction regardless of previous use is just something he seems to have made up and it doesn't belong in the article. I don't understand the obsession with causing nicotine addiction anyway because the data so far seem clear; non-smokers aren't using them, so the question of them becoming addicted is purely hypothetical.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 22:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I am actually of the mind that the Ram Moorthy quote should be removed from the article. Currently the Moorthy quote is not found in the body of the article and is a violation of WP:LEAD. Second, this one cherry-picked quote from Moorthy seems WP:UNDUE, and also I have found other quotes from Moorthy regarding e-cigs that are much more negative than this quote. Moorthy's medical specialty is not even in this area. Best option would be to remove this one guy's quote from the article and only use authoritative reliable secondary sources from WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. Zad68 21:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually it is in the body of the article; it's just not attributed to Moorthy. How is the opinion of the head of the BMA's Junior Doctor's Committee WP:UNDUE? And whether or not he's said more negative things, he has also said quite clearly that they are several orders of magnitude safer than smoking, and I don't see why that isn't relevant.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 22:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
There is nothing in WP's rules that says only MEDRS sources can be used. At the end of the day this is an article about a recreational device and to insist on only MEDRS sources seems frankly absurd.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 22:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
WP:MEDRS is the Wikipedia sourcing guideline for biomedical information, there's no getting around that. Any statement quoted in the popular press by an individual is, per WP:MEDRS, "expert opinion" and is the least-preferred kind of source per WP:MEDASSESS. As we have so many other more-preferred sources, there is no reason to resort to individual cherry-picked quotes from individual MDs in popular press articles. Zad68 22:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Zad, would you be happy to simply have this removed from the lead? It depends, if he is speaking in the context of imparting the official BMA stance on e-cigarettes, I would say it might be notable. If it is just someone's opinion, maybe lose it. Not convinced the Junior Doctor's committee are the people we should be quoting. What about the "official line" of the BMA?
Fergus, re. MEDRS, whilst this could be viewed as a recreational device, in actuality it is a delivery system of a drug. When we write content about the health effects of something like this, we need MEDRS sources. You can imagine how things would be if we did not (or at least, even more so). Lesion (talk) 22:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, removing all popular press Moorthy quotes from the article is exactly what I am supporting. If there is an official document from the BMA regarding e-cigs, let's use that source and there will not be any reason to quote Moorthy. From the popular press it's not really even possible to tell reliably whether Moorthy is being quoted in an official capacity as a BMA authority on the topic or not, and my impression is that most of the time he's speaking his own mind and not proclaiming any sort of official position of the BMA. Again, he is not being quoted in his particular area of specialty, or even in an area where he is exercising his BMA role... why would a Junior Doctor committee member be the right BMA spokesperson to seek out for this kind of info? Most likely the press seeks him out because he published his phone number and email address freely on his personal publicity site so he's easy to get a hold of. Zad68 22:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Looks like someone agreed with you and removed this quote. Lesion (talk) 23:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
It's a recreational device. I have one right here full of 0mg chocolate juice. What drug is it delivering?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 22:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
So are cigarettes but you aren't going to convince anybody that WP:MEDRS isn't the right guideline to source info regarding health effects of cigarettes. Zad68 22:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Nor am I trying to. We're not talking about cigarettes or any other form of smoking, though. Right now any adverse health effects of e-cigs are purely hypothetical. The vapour contains nothing that isn't already found in food products - or licensed medicines, for that matter.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 22:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
If you want to make statements about biomedical information, such as the human health effects of <fill in anything here>, WP:MEDRS is the controlling sourcing guideline. Zad68 22:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but on current information e-cigs don't have any health effects! This is what I've been saying all along - "concerns" are not health effects.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 22:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
This is semantics. MEDRS is needed here. Lesion (talk) 22:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
No it is not semantics. There are no known health effects of using e-cigs. None. Zero. That is hardly semantics.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 22:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Respectfully:

  • There is no consensus to use non-MEDRS sources when talking about health implications here, or anywhere else
  • There is no consensus to remove, alter or otherwise dilute the statements by the CDC, WHO etc.
  • If you read James' original wording: "although as of 2013 evidence is insufficient to determine if this is the case or not" accommodates this mainstream view and other views.
  • If the e-cigarette is supposed to be relaxing, it doesn't appear to be working. Lesion (talk) 23:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
But we aren't talking about health implications. We're talking about hypothetical health implications which have not been observed in reality. The statements by the CDC, WHO etc. are evidence of what CDC, WHO etc. think, not of anything that's happening in the real world. What is annoying me is that statements of "concern" based on no empirical evidence are being given priority over actual research. So CDC are worried about a "gateway effect?" Big deal; they've said that before, about snus, and they were utterly wrong. In fact the egregious wrongness of those who campaigned against snus has caused up to 92,000 unnecessary premature deaths in the EU, so forgive me for not finding the same argument compelling when it's leveled against e-cigs. These are just opinions. They are not health effects and should not be treated as such.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 23:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Health concerns/hypothetical health concerns is again semantics. WP:Verifiability not truth vaguely comes into play here, (assuming the CDC and the WHO are indeed wrongful in their positions). It is enough that these orgs have said there are health concerns to support content in the encyclopedic which reproduces their statements. Lesion (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
No it is not semantics. We can verify that CDC et al have expressed "concerns". We cannot verify that e-cigs have any adverse health effects and there is no good reason to think they might. Can you really not see the difference between health effects and "concerns"? Do you think NASA's concerns about meteor impacts are in fact the same thing as a meteor impact? Because that's the sort of difference we're talking about. People are "concerned" that e-cigs could create nicotine addiction among non-smokers, but the evidence says that is not happening. The "concerns" exist, but the health effect does not.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 23:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
This argument is going in circles and I am tired of it. I am sorry you disagree with the CDC's position etc, please do not take this out on the wikipedia article. Lesion (talk) 23:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I am trying to improve the article by removing everything that isn't a health effect from the health effects section. I've already suggested creating a section for concerns. The reason the argument is going round in circles is that some people can't see the difference between a "concern" and a real effect. As for CDC's position, I disagree with it because it's one they've expressed in the past about another product, in identical terms, and it proved to be disastrously wrong. I've seen nothing to suggest that it's any more accurate this time. Where are the legions of new smokers created by e-cigs? Oh right, there aren't any. And that isn't a "concern"; it's a fact backed by evidence.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 23:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Problem with this edit [10]

Ref does not mention e-cigs and e-cigs are not NRT. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Why would e-cigs present an addiction risk when NRTs that deliver more nicotine don't? This does seem relevant. So far you're the only editor who has a problem with it.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 07:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Because e-cig deliver nicotine fast. While we will see I guess. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
You have a source for that? Because it doesn't square with anything I've seen. E-cigs do not give the same rapid spike in plasma nicotine levels that result from smoking.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 07:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
The point is the source you have used does not mention the topic of this article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
There are plenty sources cited here that do not mention e-cigs. However as nobody has in fact done a study into the addictiveness of e-cigs the best we can do is cite information on the addictiveness of similar products. The most similar product would be an OTC nicotine inhaler, of the type which according to the FDA presents "no significant risk" of addiction. Given the different ways the two are used, e-cigs almost certainly present even less risk than an inhaler does.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 07:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
The added content is not relevant. I've removed it (twice). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 09:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
How is it not relevant? As claims are being made about the addictiveness of nicotine containing products I'd say an FDA statement about the addictiveness of such products is VERY relevant, wouldn't you think?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 09:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
No mention of e-cigs in the source, so this is OR/synthesis. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 09:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
So e-cigs contain a different kind of nicotine then?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 09:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Irrelevant question. We don't imply things about e-cigs using sources not about e-cigs by assuming some kind of correspondence ourselves. Find a better source. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 09:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, that's the thing, isn't it? There are no studies on the addictiveness of e-cigs, which of course is why all the "concerns" about it are just uninformed speculation. What we do have are generalized studies into the addictiveness of pure nicotine and other non-tobacco nicotine products, and they say that nicotine that isn't delivered in tobacco smoke is not very addictive. The intent here seems to be to paint e-cigs in a bad light by, for example, allowing unsupported "concerns" to be listed as health effects when in fact they're purely hypothetical and do not fit the real world data.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 11:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Lack of conclusive high-quality studies is quite opposite to what you say a very good reason for concern. I don't think this page should reflect anything else than this before such studies are made. The thing e-cigarets is attempting that other replacements don't is to replace cigarets indefinitely, while other replacements are meant as help in stepping down a dependency. Reasons to the lack of dependency to nicotine in other forms may be that they lack the glamour of smoking etc. Before studies have been done we can't go around speculating in this area. Source (tertiary [11] International New York times 131028) CFCF (talk) 14:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
That's because e-cigs are a recreational nicotine delivery device, not a nicotine replacement therapy. However your comment seems to confirm that other factors are responsible for the addictiveness of smoking rather than simply nicotine, which we know from animal studies is only weakly addictive in its pure form.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 14:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
This is the same article [12] - different name on their webside as opposed to the paper edition. CFCF (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Put in background section. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 09:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

That works for me.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 11:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it belongs there. When placed where it is it sounds like the FDA has proven that e-cigarets cause no ill effects. Being better than cigarets is one thing, but even that isn't proven. Wikipedia has a great responsibility in education of the public, and as such we must tread with caution when we phrase things concerning controversial subjects like this.CFCF (talk) 14:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
No, it sounds like the FDA have said that NRTs present little risk of addiction. Which they have. As for it not being proven that e-cigs are better than "cigarets" (sic) the CDC don't agree. Frankly, anyone who thinks e-cigs might be as harmful as smoking is a fool. All the ingredients of e-liquid are recognized as safe by the FDA.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 14:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I suggest you reread the above comment before you call anyone a fool. A quick pubmed search yields several review articles that don't agree with your assessment that e-cigarets lack serious side-effects. Each and every one I find calls that into question;
The last one states in the end of its abstract

"We concluded that e-cigarette might be an effective harm reduction tool but little is known about its safety, especially when used for a long time. Despite many positive findings from surveys among e-cigarettes users, there is need for comprehensive state-of-the-at clinical trials to show efficacy of e-cigarette as smoking cessation tool."

It is today not known if smokers of e-cigarettes smoke more or less than those who smoke ordinary cigarets, or whether the smoke potentially poses other harmful effects. An increased general acceptance of smoking e-cigarettes might actually lead to an increase in tobacco-related disease. These are all questions that aren't answered as of today, and this article must definitely reflect that.
The only article I find that can have some relevance to your argument is:
Which merely states that smokers who switch to e-cigarets stick to them more often than not, but it's far from conclusive, and doesn't (at least in the abstract) mention if smokers are less inclined to feel bad about smoking e-cigarets so as to increase their use, or whether they feel inclined to smoke more to get the same "kick". -- EDIT: CFCF (talk) 14:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

In addition to the safety concerns and unproven efficacy as smoking cessation aids, public health concerns exist with e-cigarettes. The current public health goal is tobacco cessation, but current smokers may become addicted to e-cigarettes rather than quitting smoking. Also, the public perception that these products are “safe” may not be true since little is known about the long-term effects of these products. The flavor and appearance of e-cigarettes might appeal to nonsmokers or young adults who would otherwise not use nicotine products. Another concern is that e-cigarettes will be used in public places enabling current tobacco users to maintain use.

From: Electronic Cigarettes Do They Have a Role in Smoking Cessation? CFCF (talk) 14:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Anyone who talks about "smokers" of e-cigs is definitely a fool. What smoke, eh?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 14:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
And this verbal effluent - "An increased general acceptance of smoking e-cigarettes might actually lead to an increase in tobacco-related disease." - is the ravings of an idiot. How can e-cigs cause tobacco-related disease? Do you know how much tobacco they contain? Try none.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 14:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
If not from tobacco where do produce your nicotine then? I am hard pressed to believe it's synthesized. CFCF (talk) 14:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
What the hell does that have to do with it?? E-cig liquid contains no tobacco. I had a cheese sandwich for lunch. I am hard pressed to believe it was synthesized, but it still didn't contain any beef.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 15:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I accidentally mistook that last study for a review, and I wasn't thorough enough when I restored the content added by FergusM1970. Thank you for reverting the page Yobol. -- CFCF (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

We do not typically have "background" sections per WP:MEDMOS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Why would this article follow MEDMOS? MOS' are not prescriptive, but advisory (its a guideline - see the top of every MOS page). --Kim D. Petersen 00:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. This is not a medical article - it's an article about a recreational device.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 05:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Gateway effect again

One of my edits has just been deleted on the grounds that the sources don't mention e-cigs. That's because the edit in question was talking about snus. Given the prominence that "gateway effect" claims have received I think it's helpful to give the history of such claims by ANTZ, which is what the references do.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 03:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Gateway drug theory is about unrelated drugs or leading to crime, like going from nicotine to cocaine or methamphetamine, not e-cigs to tobacco. The use of "gateway" in the latter context is a misnomer. The former is absurd; the latter is entirely possible and highly probable if supply/production of e-cigs is suddenly limited because they're substitute goods. If somehow you manage to misinterpret this too, I'm not going to bother with a response. Seppi333 (talk) 04:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a ban on e-cigs could lead to users switching back to smoking. But that's not what the ANTZ are saying, is it? They're saying that e-cigs need to be restricted to prevent a "gateway effect," just like they (wrongly) said about snus.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 04:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Is this a reliable source: [13] ? Lesion (talk) 12:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, it's a government department reporting on a study announced at a major US medical conference. I'd say it's reliable enough to report the preliminary findings that have been announced. When the full report is published I'll add more detail and a link to that.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 13:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
No, it is not a reliable source. It is not peer-reviewed, it is not published, and it is a primary study. We can wait until it is published and evaluated in secondary sources like we should be doing, per WP:WEIGHT, WP:MEDRS, WP:PSTS. Any source being used on this page must talk about e-cigarettes, any discussion that uses sources that don't mention e-cigarettes are clearly WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Yobol (talk) 15:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, what? Any source being used on this page must talk about e-cigarettes? Says what rule?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 15:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
WP:SYNTH. Trying to tie the effects of snus to e-cigarettes without explicit mention by a reliable source will not fly. Yobol (talk) 16:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I was tying snus to the alleged "gateway effect," which was also a predicted consequence of snus not being banned. I think, given the prominence the "gateway" argument is receiving, some background on how it worked out last time is relevant.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 17:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
OK, I removed it (again). Agree should not be using a primary source to contradict secondary. Lesion (talk) 15:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
We do not have any MEDRS secondary sources to contradict. Advisory information based in speculation != Medical information. --Kim D. Petersen 15:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
^^THIS^^^--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 15:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Since we do not have any MEDRS sources to support the gateway idea with real data - which is rather obvious since it is speculation/hypothesis, it is most certainly a relevant source/reference to use in this context. You need to differentiate between the advisory position that some organizations have, and their information position. --Kim D. Petersen 15:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The removal is correct per WP:MEDREV. We trust the authoritative bodies to review the available evidence and make statements. If authoritative bodies are already commenting in the area we cannot cherry-pick individual primary sources of very questionable quality and line them up against the statements by the authoritative bodies as if the primary sources carry the same weight or have the authority to undermine what they say. Zad68 15:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The authoritative bodies make it very clear that their advisory position is based on speculation and not real world data. So it is most certainly not the case that they have reviewed the available evidence. And since the text was written in the correct way according to MEDRS i do not see the problem. We also have the ASH data which is a european authoritative body, but that is also (apparently) a problem because (i speculate) US citizens cannot recognize ASH's position in British/European context. --Kim D. Petersen 15:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
The problem of course is that using any and all "studies", whether they have been peer-reviewed, published or not turns this from an encyclopedia article into a dumping ground for primary studies. This is why we wait for secondary sources, to tell us which studies are useful, which are not, which are well designed, which conclusions deserve WP:WEIGHT, etc. We should absolutely not be adding primary studies like this to the article, especially when they haven't even been peer-reviewed/published yet. I'm not sure what you mean by "written in the correct way according to MEDRS"; MEDRS is a sourcing guideline, which actively discourages using primary studies to debunk secondary sources, and I'm fairly sure you won't find support in MEDRS for including studies that have not been peer-reviewed or published yet. Yobol (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
The trouble is that we are in the hypothesis stage of the whole "gateway" issue, there are no secondary evidence based MEDRS sources to base this upon... Thus the argument that a primary MEDRS reference shouldn't be mentioned is invalid. WP:MEDASSESS is the relevant section. The trouble here is that the "authoritative position" doesn't exist. Other than that i would completely agree, iff such secondary sources had actually existed. --Kim D. Petersen 16:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Except statements of concern about hypothetical risks are not secondary sources, no matter who publishes them. For the "concerns" expressed by CDC et al to be secondary sources they would have to be based on a primary source, which of course they are not. All the available evidence - which, it seems, is to be excluded from this article at all costs - says that e-cigs are not inducting non-smokers into nicotine addiction, have no potential to act as a "gateway" to smoking and do not present any significant health risks. Vague "concerns" do not outweigh the evidence just because they're on WHO headed notepaper.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 16:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
For an encyclopedia, they do. Wikipedia is not the place to push changes in scientific consensus. Wikipedia follows the mainstream sources, and we should avoid using primary sources to contradict the mainstream view. Lesion (talk) 16:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Unsupported "concerns" are neither a scientific consensus nor a mainstream view. They're just comments about hypothetical risks that are not backed up by the real world data. The "gateway" argument in particular has been used before and failed spectacularly.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 16:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Oops, when we are talking from the encyclopedia viewpoint (and not from the MEDRS point), then all of these are secondary sources (per WP:RS). (btw. a PR study is secondary per WP:RS just to dispell that one). --Kim D. Petersen 16:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

For our reference for this discussion:

  • The source being used in the article is here, it says a survey of 1,300 college students. Article says "Study findings presented at medical conferences are considered preliminary since they haven't been carefully reviewed by outside experts for publication in a medical journal." So, I can't find a PubMed entry for it.
  • That appears to be a republishing of the original "HealthDay" article here
  • There is a related pilot study PMID 22471757, "Pilot Investigation of Changes in Readiness and Confidence to Quit Smoking After E-cigarette Experimentation and 1 Week of Use", involving three groups of N=20 or less

Zad68 16:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

We also have Martin Dockrell; Rory Morison; Linda Bauld; Ann McNeill (2013), "e-Cigarettes: Prevalence and attitudes in great Britain", Nicotine and Tobacco Research, 15 (10): 1737–1744, doi:10.1093/ntr/ntt057, PMID 23703732 Which is what the ASH advisory is based upon. Which is from 2 surveys each with of 12,000+ participants.--Kim D. Petersen 16:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Again, this article should not be used as a dumping ground for every single primary study. Let's wait for secondary sources, per our usual processes. Yobol (talk) 16:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
If the ASH document isn't acceptable because it's a primary study can we then get rid of the CDC/WHO "concerns," which after all aren't based on any study whatsoever?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 16:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
If you have any MEDRS evidence based secondary sources - instead of advisories - then please place them here. Until then, we are unfortunately limited to MEDRS primary sources and advisories. (please see WP:MEDASSESS again)--Kim D. Petersen 16:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
No, we are then left with the advisories alone, and left to wait for secondary sources to evaluate the primary studies. Encyclopedia articles are not dumping ground for every primary study. Yobol (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
So you're saying we should reject all the data that actually exists in favour of advisories that deal purely in hypotheticals?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 16:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
No, it is your assumption that they purely in hypotheticals. I see no indication from any source that is an accurate statement. Yobol (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
There is no evidence that e-cigs act as a gateway to smoking (and quite a lot contradicting the idea) therefore the CDC's concerns about a "gateway effect" are hypothetical. They are not based on any data. Agreed? There is no evidence to support the concern that non-smokers will become addicted to nicotine through e-cig use, and quite a lot in the other direction. Therefore concerns about this are purely hypothetical. Agreed? There is no evidence to support the claim that e-cig use reduces smokers' motivation to quit, and in fact Smoking in England's STS points strongly in the other direction. Therefore this concern, too, is purely hypothetical. Agreed?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 16:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Not agreed, it looks like you are saying your access to sources and your qualifications and expertise in reviewing the available evidence surpasses that of the CDC. When the choice is between statements produced by an authoritative medical organization and assertions by an anonymous Wikipedia editor, we go with what the authoritative medical body has to say. Zad68 17:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
The CDC haven't reviewed any evidence though. They've made that quite clear. Their "concerns" on the issue are just that - something they're worried about. It is not based on real world data.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 17:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Erm the CDC advisory in question is not an authorative statement - check yourself: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6235a6.htm. It is on the same level as the other sources that we've been talking about here. --Kim D. Petersen 17:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Advisories are not WP:MEDRS sources, as far as i can tell. What we need are secondary assessments, but none such exist. If we are talking as pure WP references, then yes, a CDC/FDA reference is a significant WP:RS source, but it does not trump away contradictory sources.
I think the trouble here is that some think that the "gateway" issues, is a mainstream/scientific consensus - but that is rather clearly not the case. --Kim D. Petersen 17:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I also looked for anything about advisories under WP:MEDRS, and didn't find anything.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 17:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
There is clear consensus against inclusion of the source. Lesion (talk) 17:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Break - lets assess the sources

Above a lot of claims have been made about the CDC/FDA making authoritative statements on the "gateway" effect- But if we examine the references given in the article (fx. this), then they are:

  • Not authoritative
  • Not WP:MEDRS secondary sources.

So i'm assuming that people are talking about different references than what i've seen so far... Can we please have some CDC/FDA refs on the table (with relevant text) that addresses the "gateway" issue? --Kim D. Petersen 17:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

(From Previous section) Gateway drug theory is about unrelated drugs or leading to crime, like going from nicotine to cocaine or methamphetamine, not e-cigs to tobacco. The use of "gateway" in the latter context is a misnomer. The former is absurd; the latter is entirely possible and highly probable if supply/production of e-cigs is suddenly limited because they're substitute goods. Seppi333 (talk) 20:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but the people who want to limit the supply and production of e-cigs are exactly the same people as the ones who're complaining about a gateway effect. Seems like they could resolve their own concerns by shutting up, really. In any case that doesn't change the fact that there are no RS to back up the idea that e-cigs can act as a gateway or get people addicted; it's just hypotheticals and should NOT be in the Health Effects section.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 01:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I do not see why other editors should have to do this work since they favored the status quo over these series of POV-pushing edits with cherry picked primary sources. If you want the article changed it is up to you to present evidence. Lesion (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, at least we've found some sources, even if you regard them as cherry-picked. There don't seem to be any sources to back up the "concerns" about the gateway hypothesis though, do there? Evidence has been presented. It's at least as good as an advisory that doesn't take any real world data into account. I'd say that after repeated requests for a WP:MEDRS source to back up the "gateway" and youth addiction claims, none of which have been answered, it's time to move them out of Health Effects and into a separate "Concerns" or "Hypothetical Risks" section, because there's clearly no evidence to show that these are actual health effects of e-cigs.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 17:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
The onus is on those that make a claim to provide the references to support that claim. Therefore your "why other editors should have to do this work" is baseless. Please provide the references. Otherwise we must assume that they do not exist, and must go with the references that we have - which are currently primary MEDRS references. --Kim D. Petersen 18:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Summary:

  • There is a clear consensus that the mainstream view is represented by the CDC, WHO etc.
  • There is clear consensus that we should not use any primary sources to contradict this.
  • The concerns raised by the CDC etc are relevant enough to mention in the health effects section.
  • Until such a time as a reliable secondary source is available to support any of your opinions (which as far as I can ascertain is essentially "The CDC is wrong, I am right") can we please stop this pointless argument that should have ended days ago. Lesion (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Where is that consensus? We need references on the table which is what i am asking for. Please see WP:MEDASSESS. --Kim D. Petersen 18:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree. These concerns are not backed by anything even remotely meeting the MEDRS criteria, and unless a suitable source is produced they should be removed.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 18:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
The consensus comes from the majority of editors, whether commentators on this talk page, or who have reverted changes to the page. This is therefore the status quo. Per bold, revert discuss (or in this case non NPOV edit, revert/edit war/discuss all at same time), if you want to change the status quo, the change needs to be accepted by the majority of editors. It is not the job of the people who support the status quo to "defend it", it is the other way around. Tired of this bs. How many people have to state they oppose these changes before you get the message? Lesion (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
The number of people who oppose the changes is irrelevant if the status quo isn't backed up by RS. Which it doesn't appear to be.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 18:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
First, consensus does not override WP:V, Second WP:CONSENSUS is not based on numbers, but on strength of arguments, and without references to back up your position, there is no strength in your argument. We need to reach a consensus, but so far there is none. --Kim D. Petersen 19:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Actually, consensus pretty much over-rides anything. Where are you claiming that verifiability has been breached? Whilst consensus does not come directly from a numerical vote, I think there is a clear enough consensus here. Almost unanimous consensus. Lesion (talk) 11:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

So is the argument that the CDC and the FDA are not suitable sources? They are ideal sources per "position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies" WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Except that the CDC reference given[14] is not a "position statement" but instead a paper writeup about a study. And i so far haven't seen any position on this from the FDA (except claims). --Kim D. Petersen 14:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Consensus is here [15]. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Consensus about not using the ASH source - correct. But not that the CDC writeup is a position statement or even a WP:RS (yes, i didn't use WP:MEDRS because it wouldn't adhere to that either). Do please explain to me, how a few lines at teh in article in a CDC magazine about a primary study becomes a position statement of the CDC? --Kim D. Petersen 17:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't repeat the conclusions of the CDC - but refers to a specific study by the CDC (which is a primary MEDRS source). There is a difference. 'twould be a reliable source to the IUATLD's position... but i can't see how that org is much different from ASH, which isn't acceptable (see above) --Kim D. Petersen 18:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you trying to state that the CDC does not hold this position? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not they hold the position is irrelevant. Do you have a WP:MEDRS source saying they hold it? So far nobody has come up with one.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 06:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Nope not the way it works. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Of course it's the way it bloody works. If you don't have an RS for it, it shouldn't be in the article. As you yourself have repeatedly stated the required standard for sources in the "health effects" section is WP:MEDRS. Do you have a MEDRS source confirming that the CDC are pushing the "gateway effect" argument again?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 07:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The positions of the WHO, FDA, and CDC are MEDRS compliant. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

But the position of ASH isn't? How's that then?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 07:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
They are not a "nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm curious as to how you determine this? How are you capable of saying that they are not a nationally recognized expert body? Consider material such as (as an example) the Scottish government review of ASH's work found here[16] (specifically the section on "ASH Scotland Contribution to policy development and initiatives") or the WHO 2011 award for accomplishments in the area of tobacco control[17] - Do you have a list of such organizations, or are you determining this yourself? --Kim D. Petersen 00:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to propose them as such as we can discuss. It is based on consensus here on the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I believe that there were 3 questions in my comment, none of which were answered by your response? --Kim D. Petersen 02:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced information

I would have thought that adding a more up to date reference on the consistency of nicotine delivery would not be controversial. An outdated 2009 study is deemed acceptable, so why do you keep deleting a 2013 one?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 15:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Has been restored as of now. -- CFCF (talk) 15:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
About the 2013 longitudinal study, where did it state the all of the users who had relapsed had done so during the first month? 6% is a relative figure, add 1 or so and it can still be 6%, and it doesn't say whether the users who had relapsed during the first month eventually went back to vaping either. CFCF (talk) 15:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I have now edited the article to make that more clear. If you don't mind me asking, how much do you know about e-cigs? I ask because, given your references to them producing smoke and your apparent belief that they contain tobacco, you seem to know very little about the subject.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 15:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I suggest you refrain from personal attacks as you have done above. Arguing pointless semantics will get you nowhere. None of my statements were incorrect. -- CFCF (talk) 15:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Well actually several of your statements were incorrect, including all of those referring to smoking/smokers of e-cigs, e-cigs producing smoke and e-cigs containing tobacco. As for personal attacks that wasn't my intention; suggesting that you lack knowledge of e-cigs is not an insult, but in any case I apologise if you took it that way. My intention was to establish how much you know about the subject, because if your knowledge is extremely limited it's more likely people will disagree with your edits.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 15:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Not referring to the inhaling of vapor from e-cigarets as smoking is merely a marketing ploy used to normalize a no longer glamorous behavior, but that's a different question entirely. The great thing with Wikipedia is that you can't just claim "insider knowledge", but you need to back your statements up with facts, which is why your edits are being removed.
And as to your allegory comparing tobacco to beef, it was quite farfetched and didn't illustrate anything. If your cheese was made of gelatin from beef it would contain beef[18][19][20], but as we discussed the nicotine comes from tobacco, so it is most definitely a tobacco product. Just because it has been refined doesn't mean it no longer contains tobacco. That's like saying corn-starch doesn't contain corn because it has been broken down with acid.
Oh FFS. Tobacco contains nicotine. Nicotine does not contain tobacco. You may find this article of interest if you're having problems. As for smoke, the word has a rather specific meaning and e-cigs don't release it.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 05:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I think researching this even briefly will confirm that FergusM1970 is more accurate here. The vapor from e-cigarettes is not smoke. It is water vapor with trace amounts of other substances, but it is not smoke -- in other words, it is not made of particulates created by combustion. That is simply a fact. The nicotine may be derived from tobacco, but it is not tobacco, any more than -- to paraphrase your own example -- corn syrup is corn. You do seem to have a strong POV about this particular subject. StrangeAttractor (talk) 01:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
That was my point - anyone who thinks e-cigs release smoke or contain tobacco clearly hasn't even carried out basic research on the subject, and should do so before beginning to edit.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 05:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Besides, I don't see anyone disagreeing with my edits, except you. At least twice I have now seen you incorrectly summarize the contents of an article. I suggest you read up on WP:MEDMOS,WP:MEDRS -- CFCF (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

We need to use high quality secondary sources or positions of major national or international organizations. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

MEDRS says primary sources can't be used to rebut secondary sources. It doesn't say primary sources cannot be used. Now, why is it wrong to cite a 2013 study but fine to have an outdated one? Do you really think data about the e-cigs available in 2009 is even slightly relevant today?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 05:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Are statements from 2009 relevant? Yes they are. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
WHY are they relevant? Do you know how many of the devices they tested are still on the market? None. They tested an extremely small sample of devices that were obsolete by 2010, but this article is generalizing their dubious conclusions to cover the entire e-cig market. Nobody cares what the FDA found in Smoking Everywhere cigalike cartridges four years ago, because nobody is using them. What you are doing is saying that transatlantic travel is dangerous because the Titanic didn't have enough lifeboats. It's blatantly POV.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 12:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Nestler, Hyman, and Malenka

What does this source actually say about nicotine-containing vapour, and about e-cigs in particular? Is it talking about vapour or smoke?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 09:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

It's molecular neuropharmacology - as in metabolized nicotine acting on nAChR. So to answer your question, yes, it's talking about e-cigs. Seppi333 (talk) 09:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
What does it say about e-cigs?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 09:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
It "says" what the page says. Seppi333 (talk) 09:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Does the cited source mention e-cigs or not?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 09:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
The cited source mentions nicotine containing media, such as that contained in nicotine-containing e-cigs vapors. Seppi333 (talk) 09:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
So in other words no, it doesn't mention e-cigs.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 09:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
What?? Lesion (talk) 11:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
The source doesn't mention e-cigs. It's not hard to understand.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 12:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

I've placed a tag on the Health Effects section. My impression is that there is a strong preference being shown for sources that express concerns about e-cigs, even where these are not grounded in any real world data, and a bias against studies that show efficacy or run counter to the ANTZ narrative on issues like the alleged "gateway effect."--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 08:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Too much focus is put upon non-quantitative and non-evidence based views/concerns/opinions without explaning the current medical basis/research underlying these concerns. Since there is a dearth of reliable secondary evidence based WP:MEDRS secondary sources, we need to find and assess some reliable evidence based WP:MEDRS primary sources, and describe them according to their WP:WEIGHT in this non-consensus (medically not WP) area.
The trouble here, and what all editors need to figure out, is that there currently isn't a mainstream medical position or consensus position on the health effects of e-cigarettes, this hopefully will clear up in the future, but until that point we should adequately describe the various views within the medical research... so far we aren't. --Kim D. Petersen 09:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is reflecting the positions of major international and national expert bodies as well as that of review articles. This is how it should be per WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I have no problem with reflecting opinions. The problem is those opinions are being presented as facts, while actual facts are being suppressed. One example - a "concern" (based on no actual study or other evidence) that e-cigs don't deliver enough nicotine to replace smoking is allowed, while a study showing very low relapse rates at the 12-month point is not.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 09:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
This is not a WP:VOTE. It is an exchange of views. As for your "reflecting the positions".. that is actually not correct. It reflects that the organizations in question have concerns about the issue because there is not enough research to have a medical opinion yet. This view must be shown - so far we are in agreement. BUT since there is no medical consensus or mainstream position, we also need to describe where the research is, at the moment. You cannot treat this as a medically resolved field - since it isn't. --Kim D. Petersen 09:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Best not to tag because of your "impression", especially as a heavily involved editor. If, after discussion, there are reasonable grounds identified for tagging then okay. As T:POV says: "the editor who adds the tag should first discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, and should add this tag only as a last resort." (my bold). Also: "the neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public" (my bold). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 09:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I have stated multiple times that "concerns" and opinions are being prioritized over verifiable facts. I have been repeatedly ignored. To read the Health Effects section you'd think that no studies have been carried out. This is very far from the case. It's just that the studies contradict the "concerns" that the section is filled with.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 09:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
This is not a WP:VOTE - but a discussion. --Kim D. Petersen 09:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
What specific editorial action is being proposed (other than adding a tag) ? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 09:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Removing anything from the Health Effects section that is not an actual health effect, and moving it to a new section entitled "Concerns" or "Controversies." Worries about a hypothetical health effect are not health effects.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 09:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I would like to note that i'd rather have a section starting out with a nod to the precautionary position taken by these organizations, and then dwelve into what the current state of research is. The "hypothetical" issue, while correct, does not preclude that we describe that uncertainty or the position taken. --Kim D. Petersen 10:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree, but it does need to be clear that these are concerns based on a lack of data rather than anything concluded from the available research. I also don't see it being inappropriate to cite primary sources where no secondary sources exist, such as the efficacy of e-cigs for smoking cessation.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 10:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)You seem to misunderstand what tagging is about - it is not to be used as a "badge of shame" (which it would be if used after discussion), but to be a "call to discussion". --Kim D. Petersen 09:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Read the guidance at WP:T. Leaving it in place after discussion and not doing anything about it would be a badge of shame. But it should only be used if there is a genuine neutrality problem that cannot be dealt with by normal editing, to attract wider attention. The only specific thing I'm seeing suggested here is that we should be using primary sources: that is not a genuine neutrality problem. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 09:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
But there is a genuine neutrality problem. I added a source that gave relapse and smoking cessation rates. It was deleted. Meanwhile some unfounded speculation about lack of effectiveness remains. If that's not a neutrality problem what is it?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 09:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
You want to use a primary source for health-related info? You can either be told that's not acceptable here, or maybe take it to WT:MED or WP:RS/N and get told there if you want to take up other editors time. Which specific text are you saying is "unfounded" (or badly-sourced)? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 09:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
The use of primary sources is acceptable if they're not used to contradict secondary sources. A concern that isn't backed up by real world data is not a secondary source. Where's the evidence behind these worries about addiction, "gateway effects" or ineffectiveness for smoking cessation? There isn't any. These are somebody's opinions; they are not health effects of e-cigs.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 09:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
The real trouble is the state of research at the moment. There is a significant lack of secondary evidence based WP:MEDRS refs. This is to be expected btw. considering how new the subject is, which is also why organizations such as WHO is calling on the Precautionary principle with regards to the topic. It is a topic where the state of research is in flux, and we're not reflecting that. --Kim D. Petersen 09:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I believe that there is a genuine neutrality problem as well. What we have so far is an emphasis, to the point of exclusion of evidential research, on organizations using the Precautionary principle. I do not think that any one is arguing that we shouldn't describe the position of these organizations, nor that we should minimize the importance of the fact that there isn't a medical consensus on the health effects. But we are, at the moment, not describing where the research is actually at, or what focuses the research has. No one is arguing (afaict) for fringe views here, or that (to take an extreme) we should describe e-cigs as safe and healthy (they probably aren't). --Kim D. Petersen 09:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
And your proposed edit is ... ? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 09:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
That we first of all get to a position where we assess the relevant literature, even if it is rather limited at the moment (WP:MEDASSESS) and write up the health section according to the weight of the current literature. This unfortunately also means that we need to review primary MEDRS sources, because of the lack in secondary ones. --Kim D. Petersen 10:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
In reviewing, assessing and passing comment on primary sources, we would be taking it upon ourselves to act as medical reviewers and fairly directly violate WP:MEDRS, WP:SYNTHESIS and probably WP:OR. It simply isn't allowed. We relay what the high-quality secondary sources say: that's Wikipedia 101. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 10:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
But there aren't secondary sources for most of this, just statements of concerns or opinion. An opinion doesn't become a secondary source just because it's expressed by CDC. For example the "gateway" claims; yes, CDC are worried about this, but their worries aren't based on any evidence whatsoever. Concerns like this should be included in the article, but not as health effects because that is not what they are. It would be a health effect if people were becoming addicted to e-cigs then moving on to smoking, but all the primary sources say that isn't happening and there is no credible reason why it might.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 10:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
It is in fact not correct that we cannot use or assess primary sources according to WP:MEDRS, there is in fact a section in medrs about it. It is the case that we should always prefer secondary sources, and never use primary sources to debunk or contradict secondary sources. I'm not in any way or form advocating this. Nor am i advocating that we should synthesize a view. What i am asking is that we describe the medical research and the current state of it, as described in reliable sources according to their weight in the literature. Which is what an encyclopedia should always do. Do also keep in mind here that MEDRS and RS are not in correspondace with each other with regards to what is a primary source is (a medrs primary source is a secondary source by rs standards). --Kim D. Petersen 11:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
MEDRS says: "all Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources. Reliable primary sources may occasionally be used with care as an adjunct to the secondary literature, but there remains potential for misuse". You know what "occasionally", "with care" and "as an adjunct" mean right? The primary information that I've seen being proposed is none of these things, it's information which is novel to this article and not supplementing secondary findings. Using it in the light of the cautious tone from our reliable secondaries is in fact careless, especially since a recurrent concern from them is the difficulty of carrying out meaningful research in this area. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 11:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
OK then. Where is the reliable, published secondary source that says e-cigs can get people addicted to nicotine? Where is the reliable, published secondary source that says e-cigs can act as a gateway to smoking? If these sources don't exist then we need to go with what does exist, which is the primary sources, or leave these issues out of the Health Effects section. A statement to the effect of "Well, we're worried this might happen" is not a reliable, published secondary source.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 11:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
It is a fact that the CDC and FDA have these concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I know. However it is not a fact that these are health effects of e-cigs, and until it is these concerns do not belong in a section titled Health Effects.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 09:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it most certainly is a fact that they have those concerns. They have those concerns because they do not have quantitative knowledge about the health effects, thus they take the precautionary route - which they also should. But, and this is a big but, this does not mean that we shouldn't describe the current state of evidence based knowledge about the area, which is currently not the case - and which is why i feel that the POV tag is merited. --Kim D. Petersen 09:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Try a RfC maybe. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
To have an RfC we all need to understand the variety of positions taken on this particular issue, so that an RfC intro can be written that isn't biased towards a specific viewpoint - i do not believe that we are at that stage yet. --Kim D. Petersen 10:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
All I am seeing is proposals to set aside Wikipedia policy while editing. If that's so, this is just a waste of time and it would be a shame to have other editors sink there efforts into having to state the obvious. Maybe the least wasteful approach would be to post at WP:NPOV/N. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 10:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
What I'm seeing is the exclusion of all the actual evidence and the elevation of non-empirical concerns to honourary "secondary source" status.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 10:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you're seeing what Wikipedia is: conservative & lagging the cutting edge. Anyway are you going to take this to NPOV/N or do anything about it? We're going nowhere here. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 10:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Conservative I can deal with. That's not what's happening here though. The article has a section entitled Health Effects, which a reader would reasonably assume contains health effects of using an e-cig. That isn't what it does contain though. It's full of speculation. The WHO don't know if e-cigs are effective for smoking cessation. The FDA are concerned that they might get people addicted to nicotine. The CDC worry that they could result in people switching to smoking. This isn't a conservative, slightly out of date position based on older evidence; it's just unfounded worries.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 10:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
If we had to set aside WP policy to address this problem, then i would be entirely within your camp, but this is not the case. Any controversial or emerging area can be written up in a way that fully follows WP policy. No policy requires that we cannot describe the current state of research by referencing evidential primary WP:MEDRS sources. You have to assess the sources and describe them according to their relevance and relative weight in the literature. One example would be a study such as:
Etter, J. F. O.; Bullen, C. (2013). "A longitudinal study of electronic cigarette users". Addictive Behaviors. 39 (2): 491–4. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2013.10.028. PMID 24229843.
or the ASH and CDC surveys of e-cigarette usages (both in the medline database). --Kim D. Petersen 11:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose tagging as unnecessary and bordering on "badge of shame" territory in its usage. There isn't a lack of secondary sources, there is a disagreement by two editors as to the conclusions of most of those secondary sources, so they want to add primary studies to rebut them. This is specifically prohibited by WP:MEDRS. The correct way to gain a truly neutral point of view is to take the available secondary sources and summarize them; what we should not do is analyze the primary sources and insert them whenever we as editors feel the conclusions of those secondary sources are wrong. If you want to add other MEDRS compliant secondary sources, bring them forth, but trying to add your own conclusions against those of secondary sources is poor form. Yobol (talk) 13:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Yet again you are mistaking "Well, we don't have any evidence but we're worried about this" for a secondary source. It isn't. A secondary source is a review of a primary source, and that is not what all these "concerns" are. They're just opinions. Where is the research the "gateway" claims are based on? What research shows a risk of people becoming addicted through e-cig use? It doesn't exist!--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 13:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Again, concerns by major medical associations are appropriate secondary sources; that you attempt to use wordsmithing to define away "secondary source" because you do not like the conclusion of those sources, is not terribly convincing. Yobol (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
They are only secondary sources if they're based on primary sources. Concerns unsupported by evidence are not secondary sources. They certainly aren't good reason to remove actual evidence from the article, which has been done systematically. For example "concerns" about e-cigs not delivering enough nicotine to act as a long term replacement for smoking are allowed to stay in the article, but a study showing single digit relapse rates isn't! What sense does that make?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 13:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
MEDRS explicitly rules in "position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies", and no amount of quibbling over whether they are secondary sources (which they are, in my judgement, FWIW) alters that. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 13:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
The position statement "lack of definite knowledge leads us to concerns about ..." is a Precautionary principle statement - not an authoritative medical statement that rules away a discussion of what the current state of research is. It just means that the body of evidence is not one way or the other. This is not a consensus statement, but instead a statement of (paraphrased) "there is a lack of consensus therefore we take the precautionary approach towards this topic". --Kim D. Petersen 18:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Of course they are based on primary sources, such as they exist. I don't think it is a credible claim on anyone's part that these sources completely ignored the available data and decided to make up their conclusions out of thin air. Again, you do not think the conclusions of these secondary sources are accurate; your paths of recourse are to find high quality MEDRS compliant sourcing that disagrees, in which case we can present both sides with due weight to the weight in the literature, or to wait for secondary sources that agree with you to be published. Giving undue WP:WEIGHT to primary sources against WP:MEDRS to rebut secondary sources is not allowed. Yobol (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Except all the available data contradicts these "secondary" sources, doesn't it? There aren't even any real conclusions. "We are concerned about X" does not equal "We conclude X from the available evidence." There is, for example, no literature suggesting that e-cigs could act as a gateway to smoking, so why is that in the article but all the evidence is excluded? There is no evidence that e-cigs don't deliver enough nicotine to substitute for smoking, so why is that also in the article while, again, all the evidence is excluded?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 14:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
===Specific proposal?===

There is a lot of talk of NPOV and little in the way of a specific proposal, which we require. So here is my proposal:

  • In-line with MEDRS, we shall cite no primary sources for health-related information unless they are aligned with secondary sources and provide good supplementary information. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 14:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
That's unfortunately not helpful, because the issue here is the lack of secondary sources. A statement of concern, which isn't based on underlying data, is not a secondary source.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 14:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
That is not what MEDRS states, you are misquoting it Alex. --Kim D. Petersen 17:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Realizing that "aligned with" does not rule out that we can use MEDRS primary source where no secondary sources exist i've removed part of the previous. I agree with Fergus here though --Kim D. Petersen 18:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

If you really believe all secondary sources used here are flawed then maybe you could find some that aren't instead of wasting everyone's time trying to suggest us to disregard policy. There really isn't any discussion or any case at all here, and I think the NPOV tag should go immediately. The only possible proposal I see that will allow those edits is:

  • We shall disregard MEDRS, and cite primary sources with the sole purpose of contradicting secondary sources, because said secondary sources don't live up to the expectations of reality, as perceived by certain editors. CFCF (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
What secondary sources? All I see are statements of concern that don't refer back to primary sources or any other form of real world data.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 23:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
These are the position of major internationally respected organizations. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. Positions. They are not secondary sources and are not as authoritative as the underlying literature. Nor is it forbidden to use primary sources to refute them.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 11:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Just follow the rules and stop removing the damn tag until this discussion has been resolved. There is a genuine neutrality issue here. The Health section is still largely dominated by the precautionary principle, while actual evidence is being systematically excluded. None of these concerns about addiction, gateway effects or inefficacy are backed up by any data. That means they are not secondary sources, which by definition are based on primary sources. A statement of concern about an effect that has not been detected in the real world does not outweigh the actual evidence, but that's what is being done here.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 11:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh great. A tag team. Pathetic. Is there an active discussion in progress? Yes, I do believe there is. So stop removing the tag. There is a neutrality issue here. Rules are being interpreted extremely narrowly, and secondary source status being awarded generously (as long as it falls on one side of the debate, of course) to prevent anything being added to the article that contradicts a very specific narrative. That is ample justification for the tag.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 11:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Not excluding the evidence, just waiting for it to be discussed in secondary sources. Wikipedia is not supposed to keep immediately up to date with changing paradigms in medicine. For now, CDC WHO etc present the mainstream view. Lesion (talk) 12:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
No. They present their own view. It certainly isn't the mainstream one. That would require a consensus, which does not exist. The UK's leading tobacco control organization, for example, completely rejects the "gateway" argument and concludes that e-cig use is confined to current and former smokers.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 12:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay so you consider WHO, FDA and CDC not mainstream? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Strawman FAIL. That is not what I said. I said that their position on the gateway effect and the risk of non-smokers becoming addicted to e-cigs is not mainstream. That's because it isn't. For their views to be mainstream there would need to be a consensus that they follow. There isn't. Several major players in the tobacco control industry dissent from their expressed views. I note that WHO spokesmen have claimed that cigarettes are safer than e-cigs "because they have filters," so their mainstream credentials do need to be seriously questioned on this issue.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 12:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous

My latest edit, regarding a proposed (and defeated) e-cig ban in Curry County, NM has just been reverted on the following grounds: The other items in this list refer to state-wide legislation. Well no actually, there are two other references to county-level legislation in there. However User:Lesion hasn't deleted those, has he? At this point it doesn't seem to matter what I add to the article; one of a small group of editors is going to revert it anyway.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 13:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Since the title of the section is "state legislation" maybe we should think about removing anything that isn't state-wide, or at least rename the section ... Lesion (talk) 13:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Maybe you should read the damn article for a change instead of reflexively reverting every edit I make.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 14:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Your words are nonresponsive to my comment. Let's not make this personal. I think it is a contradiction to list non state wide legislation in a section called "state legislation". The other option is to rename the section heading. I think the former might be more appropriate for a global encyclopedia which should focus on major notable facts and not too much on regional matters. Lesion (talk) 14:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Do whatever you like. I'm sure you'll come up with a nice "Quit or die" slant for it. And no, it didn't escape my notice that the only county-level item you deleted was the one about a ban being defeated. The two about bans being enacted seem to be just fine. I wonder why?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 14:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm proposing removing all non-state wide legislation from the list. Lesion (talk) 14:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Fill your boots. My give a fuck meter is reading zero at this point.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 14:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I assume that Iowa and Washington were the other county level items referred to. I have removed them for now. Lesion (talk) 14:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Meh. Well done you.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 14:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
How exactly is your last comment in any way related to the article? Suggest read WP:TALK, although you don't seem to understand other guidelines you have read either. Lesion (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what I say about the article, because any edits I make to it will simply be reverted on sight by you or another POV pusher.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 15:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the other editors on this page aren't completely in line with each-other, but before any constructive work can begin it has been needed to come to terms as to what is agreed on, and your edits have by consensus been seen as disruptive. To learn how to use this talk-page please see WP:TPNO, there is a very good image there concerning the hierarchy of disagreement. You've based your arguments mostly on the bottom tiers, quite a bit in the bottom-most tier. Please turn to this page when engaging talk. -- CFCF (talk) 15:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Nothing constructive can be done as long as a small group of editors are misinterpreting WP rules to exclude all sources that don't suit their POV and allow all that do. You, with your blatant lies about the topic of the article, are the one whose POV is most obvious.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 15:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
The small group you are referring to is nonetheless a substantial majority, so I suggest you stop arguing that case. -- CFCF (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Secondary source from CDC added. I await developments with considerable interest.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 20:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Primary sources supporting secondary sources

Are these of relevance?

States that e-cigs are used because they are accessible by teenagers. Does this support the gateway hypothesis presented by secondary sources?

A recent study by Pepper et al. (2013) revealed that 63% of non-smoking boys were aware of e-cigarettes compared to their former smoking (68%) and current smoking (76%) counterparts.

These data confirm the recent concerns conveyed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the e-cigarette industry’s marketing to young adults,as well as its potential as a gateway to nicotine addiction and tobacco use (FDA, 2009).

From 2011 to 2012, electronic cigarette use increased significantly among middle school (0.6% to 1.1%) and high school (1.5% to 2.8%) students

Also from A longitudinal study of electronic cigarette users (Jean-François Etter, Chris Bullen):

JFE's salary ispaid by theUniversity of Geneva. He was reimbursed by a manufacturer of e-liquids for traveling to London and to China.

CB's salary is paid by the University of Auckland. CB has no

financial or non-financial interests relevant to the submitted work. He has previously undertaken research funded by HealthNew Zealand Ltd via an arrangement with Ruyan (an e-cigarette manufacturer) and has previously undertaken research on behalf of NicoNovum prior to the purchase of the company by RJReynolds. He was involved in a previous trial investigating the effect of Quest 3 reduced nicotine cigarettes on smoking cessation, purchased from Vector Group Ltd, USA, but Vector had no role in development of the study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation or writing of publications.

Thought this might interesting. -- CFCF (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


Firstly there are no secondary sources for the alleged "gateway effect." Secondly, even if there were the study you cite wouldn't support them because it says precisely nothing about teens who use e-cigs going on to use tobacco. The figures for the number of teenagers who're aware of e-cigs doesn't confirm anything about marketing to young adults. I'm willing to bet that a lot more than 76% of teenage boys are aware of crystal meth, and THAT isn't being marketed to them. Your comments on Etter and Bullen are nothing more than smears. With no disrespect intended, I really don't think you know enough about this topic to be editing the article. You think e-cigs produce smoke, you think they contain tobacco and you can't even spell "cigarette."--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 23:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
In that case they are smearing themselves, because that is an excerpt from the article, which I don't believe you've read. CFCF (talk) 00:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Also https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cigarette -- CFCF (talk) 00:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I know it's from the article. Where it becomes a smear is putting it here as if it's relevant. It isn't. It's a peer reviewed paper. Also "Cigarette," not "Cigaret."--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 00:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Right. Why do you keep removing my edit about the liquid concentration required to equal a cigarette's nicotine delivery? There is nothing wrong with that information. You have no justification for removing it.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 00:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Peer review is not synonymous with secondary source. (Also https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cigaret since you didn't even open the link).-- CFCF (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
You know what "dated" means? Anyway, please explain why you have twice removed a perfectly legitimate piece of information from the article.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 00:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
If you can't explain why you removed it I think perhaps you should put it back. Otherwise I will the second I can do so without breaking 3RR.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 00:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Because it was from a primary source. Since you obviously have misunderstood what a primary source is I will pull the quote directly from [WP:MEDRS] for you:
  • A primary source in medicine is one in which the authors directly participated in the research or documented their personal experiences. They examined the patients, injected the rats, filled the test tubes, or at least supervised those who did. Many, but not all, papers published in medical journals are primary sources for facts about the research and discoveries made.
  • A secondary source in medicine summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of the current understanding of a medical topic, to make recommendations, or to combine the results of several studies. Examples include literature reviews or systematic reviews found in medical journals, specialist academic or professional books, and medical guidelines or position statements published by major health organizations.
Also from WP:EW

Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as an edit-warring violation.

So please don't do that.
(Lastly dated is not the same as obsolete or archaic). -- CFCF (talk) 00:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Right. I have had enough of this. There is absolutely nothing in WP:MEDRS that says you cannot use a primary source to support and add detail to a secondary source, so your justification for reverting my edit twice does not hold even a little bit of water. Please restore it.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 00:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
See WP:MEDREV & WP:UNDUE -- CFCF (talk) 00:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
WTF are you talking about? It is perfectly OK to use a primary source to support and add detail to a secondary source, and that is exactly what I did. Are you going to reveal your real reason for reverting it twice, or just keep misrepresenting the guidelines as a smokescreen?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 00:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Again, please see: WP:MEDREV & WP:UNDUE -- CFCF (talk) 00:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Stop quoting guidelines that don't apply and explain why you deleted that information. And don't say "because it was a primary source." It's fine to cite primary sources as long as you're not using them to rebut secondary sources, which is not what I was doing.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 00:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Most of all because of WP:MEDREV, please, please read it, it's only a paragraph long. -- CFCF (talk) 01:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I've read it and it does not apply. There is no blanket prohibition on using primary sources; you just can't use them to rebut a secondary source. Now stop fannying around with this bullshit and tell me why you reverted my edit.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 01:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you show me where WP:MEDREV says that primary sources cannot be used to support and add detail to a statement based on a secondary source? I can't seem to find that bit myself, so perhaps you could help.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 01:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

You know, if there's a disagreement over an edit you're supposed to discuss it, not just blow people off with links to guidelines that aren't relevant.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 01:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Please use secondary sources. It is those who wish to change the article that need consensus to do so. Not those who wish to keep it how it was before. Hope that helps. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The guidelines don't say anything against using primary sources to support secondary ones, so why shouldn't I do it?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 08:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
As it will be more or less a waste of your time and ours. You will keep adding them. We will keep removing them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
An interesting admission, but why will you keep removing them? It is not against the guidelines to use primary sources so long as it's not being done to rebut a secondary source, so why are you so insistent on preventing me from editing this article?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 09:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Consensus supports the use of secondary sources to give proper weight to the subject matter at hand. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Consensus - a partial one, in this case - does not take precedence over WP's guidelines. The guidelines do not forbid using primary sources to add detail where no secondary sources exist. The edit I am now talking about added detail to a statement about e-cigs (only 1st generation ones, but never mind) generally not delivering as much nicotine as cigarettes. I added a peer reviewed source confirming that, indeed, you need to use liquid with a high nicotine content to achieve this. Now WHY is that a problem?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 11:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
As for those who "wish to keep it how it was before," when a field is moving as rapidly as e-cigs that's both unrealistic and perverse. No wonder so much prominence is still given to an outdated 2009 study, really.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 08:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
It is not moving that fast. Wikipedia works via consensus. Get consensus for the changes you wish first. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
On the contrary; it's moving extremely fast. Where is the consensus for preserving the article in aspic and leaving statements vague rather than supporting them with properly sourced additional detail?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 09:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Great, the proper sources are defined here WP:MEDRS and they are secondary sources or positions of major national and international organizations :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Primary sources can also be used as long as it's not to refute a secondary source. Please stop trying to redefine the rules to prevent the article being edited.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 11:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

We are not using primary sources to refute the FDA, CDC, and WHO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

You are getting very repetitive. Nobody is proposing using primary sources to refute secondary sources originating from the FDA, CDC and WHO. The problem is there aren't any. And while you're here, stop removing the tag while an active discussion is in progress. You're not supposed to do that. It's rather juvenile of you.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 11:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
You have edit warred again and are up for another block [21] ::Yes you are more or less trying to refute the positions of major medical organization with primary literature. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
What is your cognitive malfunction? The policy says you can't refute secondary sources with primary ones, but that's not what I was doing, is it?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 12:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
As for the edit war it was started by you. I attempted to discuss your repeated reverts on this talk page and you completely ignored me, instead continuing to justify your edits by talking about a consensus that tags do not require. It looks very much like you're just gaming the rules to push a POV.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 12:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

While I guess we have differing opinions on that point. I would say you are attempting to refute secondary sources with primary ones. It seems a number of other editors also agree with this assessment. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Dig your ears out. "We're kind of worried that kids will use these then start smoking" is not a secondary source no matter who says it. It may well be the position of the CDC, FDA or whoever and certainly earns a place in the article on that basis, but it's not a review of existing research (i.e. primary sources). Your refusal to accept this is at the root of most of the issues we're having here.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 12:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
It also doesn't help that you and your supporters freely decide who gets to be a credible organization for the purposes of having an opinion on this issue. ASH aren't a suitable source according to you, but as they were set up by the Royal College of Physicians and are funded by the Department of Health as a lead agency in tobacco control I can't actually see why they aren't suitable, unless it's because their conclusions don't match your POV.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 12:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
This is beginning to look like WP:IDHT to the point of being disruptive. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 12:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
No, it looks like POV pushing and gaming the rules to exclude sources you don't like. Press releases get redefined as secondary sources. Major organisations like ASH get blacklisted. Wikipedia rules get narrowly interpreted with all the demented legalistic frenzy of a Haredi rabbi in a pig farm. Anything it takes to keep the anti-e-cig slant of this article's Health section.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 12:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I would say that the IDHT is two-way here. Fergus is correct when he states that the CDC et al. concern isn't supported by the medical data, but instead is an application of the precautionary principle in light of this lack of medical data, Fergus goes too far in many comments, but essentially he is correct in this limited view. --Kim D. Petersen 23:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_5&oldid=1144523277"