Misplaced Pages

Talk:Regulation of electronic cigarettes

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk | contribs) at 13:22, 3 December 2014 (→Fork United States section: mixed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 13:22, 3 December 2014 by KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk | contribs) (→Fork United States section: mixed)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
WikiProject iconMedicine List‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
ListThis article has been rated as List-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconHealth and fitness List‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Health and fitness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of health and physical fitness related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Health and fitnessWikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitnessTemplate:WikiProject Health and fitnessHealth and fitness
ListThis article has been rated as List-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPharmacology List‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology
ListThis article has been rated as List-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Turkey

Electronic cigarettes are on sale at http://www.elektroniksigaramarkalari.com/ As there is no citation in the article for laws restricting their sale I am changing the text to say they are legal. If you revert to illegal please cite the law. How do I change the color on the map please? Jzlcdh (talk) 17:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I have updated the picture with the information from Turkey, the map was self made which I have put on Wikicommons. 159753 (talk) 19:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Austria

The refrence does not seem to match the statement. A translation of the page suggests that it only covers one product, and not another. It also mentions containing nicotine. Are we sure that e-cigarettes that do not contain nicotine are medical devices in Austria? AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of well sourced material

This text was deleted by Cloudjpk with no explanation, besides a link to a talk page discussion in another article.

Public health experts point out that electronic cigarettes use has been growing rapidly and that no proof of serious health risks has emerged, warning that misguided regulatory action could interfere with a safe substitute for smoking.

References

  1. Bates, Clive (10 September 2014). "Stop demonising a potentially useful product for smokers". The Pharmaceutical Journal. online. Retrieved 25 September 2014. Evidence conflicts with the view that electronic cigarettes are undermining tobacco control or 'renormalising' smoking, and they may be contributing to a reduction in smoking prevalence through increased success at quitting smoking.
  2. McNeill, Ann; Etter, JF. "A critique of a WHO-commissioned report and associated article on electronic cigarettes". Addiction. online. doi:10.1111/add.12730. Retrieved 15 September 2014. The World Health Organisation (WHO) recently commissioned a report reviewing evidence on electronic cigarettes and making policy recommendations. We identify important errors in the description and interpretation of the studies reviewed, and find many of its key conclusions misleading

I would appreciate an explanation on the deletion. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure! The extensive discussion in Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Consensus_for_adding_this establishes there is no consensus for the cited McNeill item as a reliable source. Bates is even simpler; he has no scientific or public health credentials. Either reliable sources must be found to source, or these views must be cited as views, not as public health expertise. I have no problem with the latter; it seems useful to summarize the views of those opposed to regulation. Cloudjpk (talk) 00:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Please re-add and change the wording and attribute the views to those that held them rather than claiming that they are "health experts". - Cwobeel (talk) 00:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Will do! Cloudjpk (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Done! Let me know if I missed anything. Cloudjpk (talk) 01:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Excellent. Thank you. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Bates may well have no academic credentials in public health, but, as the former director of ASH, he could very well be considered an expert in public health, in particular when it comes to tobacco topics. See here his CV. On the other hand, the McNeill et al. authors are well-known experts in the field. Thus the current wording in the article is misleading and should be reverted to the factual, verifiable, and complete characterization of "Public health experts". Mihaister (talk) 17:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, do not agree. The extensive dicussion in Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Consensus_for_adding_this deals with use of the cited McNeill item and does not require repeating here. Bates is an advocate, not a scientist. Public health expertise has recognized credentials; he does not have them. All the same, I am happy to represent their views and have done so and indeed find the inclusion of such views useful in documenting opponents' reasons. To characterize the items cited as expert violates NPOV. Cloudjpk (talk) 23:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Please stick to WP:BLP when referring to living persons. With regards to Clive Bates here is his CV - make of it what you want. --Kim D. Petersen 00:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
An alternative is to fully attribute the POV and add a few words on their credentials, as in, "SoandSo, a former ASH director and SoandSo, an xyz expert, assert that.... ". - Cwobeel (talk) 23:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm fine with that Cloudjpk (talk) 23:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
(Full disclosure, I am a vaper and stopped smoking a year ago thanks to e-cigarettes after several decades of tobacco smoking, now vaping on a sophisticated vaporizer.) - Cwobeel (talk) 23:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
(congratulations!) Cloudjpk (talk) 23:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm ok with full attribution as suggested above by User:Cwobeel. What I don't agree with is the current characterization in the text as "opponents". That's a textbook example of WP:WEASEL and is clearly in violation of WP:NPOV. Mihaister (talk) 01:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
The point of including the views is to give the reasons of those who oppose regulation. It would be hard to find a more neutral or more accurate term than "Opponents of regulation". What term do you suggest? Cloudjpk (talk) 16:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I think that by attributing and avoiding characterizations we can let the readers draw their own conclusions. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
That works for me! Cloudjpk (talk) 16:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Violation of WP:SECONDARY?

No evidence has been presented that these sources are reviews. There is WP:CON that the McNeil source is unreliable. See Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 101#Talk:Electronic cigarette.23Violation of consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 03:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not a medical section. There was no consensus in that discussion on McNiel, thats why it couldnt be used to address the errors in Grana on the E-cigarette article. Its not being used for that purpose, but addressing regulation. For that purpose its a reliable source. AlbinoFerret 04:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
You have not shown that any of these sources are reliable and there was no consensus to use the the McNeil source. QuackGuru (talk) 04:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
They are reliable for the way they are used. This is not a medical page or section. They dont need to be MEDRS reviews, but McNiel is a MEDRS source. It is also attributed to them. At this point you need consensus to remove it since its been there at least two months. AlbinoFerret 04:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
You think they don't need to be reviews. In turn, I can infer that you think they are primary sources. That is a no-no. You can't ignore that the previous discussion showed that McNeil is unreliable. Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 101#Talk:Electronic cigarette.23Violation of consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 04:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I have explained it to you but you dont hear it WP:IDHT. This is a non medical page, in a non medical section. It doesnt need to be a WP:MEDRS source because its not a medical page and its a non medical usage. It can be a a medical primary source or it could be a newspaper article. Its giving attribution to the people who made the conclusions. The sources are good enough for the way they are used. AlbinoFerret 04:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
You have acknowledged that both sources are primary sources. This is a clear violation of WP:SECONDARY. You can't use disputed primary sources for controversial claims. QuackGuru (talk) 04:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
They are published in reliable sources, the medical journals they are published in makes them reliable sources. You are still using terminology from WP:MEDRS when WP:RS is the controlling guideline. AlbinoFerret 05:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
This is just an attempt to policy shop WP:POLSHOP until you somehow hit the nail on the head. WP:SECONDARY does not apply because these are from journals, not a self published source the articles are secondary as they comment on the legal matters and none of the references are from lawyers or people involved in making laws. They are usable, and the references are good. You might want to read this "A secondary source usually provides analysis, commentary, evaluation, context, and interpretation. It is this act of going beyond simple description, and telling us the meaning behind the simple facts, that makes them valuable to Misplaced Pages.". The references hit that nail on the head. AlbinoFerret 14:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
This appears to be an attempt to re-insert McNeill as a MEDRS compatible source (to discuss safety issues) and to contradict the WHO, which has not received consensus despite multiple discussions. I have therefore removed it. Yobol (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
The material has been there a long time, months. The result of non consensus on long standing material is that it stays. AlbinoFerret 20:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
That it was placed against consensus and went unnoticed doesn't mean it has consensus now. Discussion on the main e-cig talk page and DRN discussion above clearly shows there is no consensus to use the source in this way. Yobol (talk) 20:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Different page, different talk page. It isnt used to contradict Grana or the WHO. AlbinoFerret 20:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't become magically MEDRS compliant because it is on a different Misplaced Pages page. Yobol (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
It doesnt have to be MEDRS compliant on the legal page. AlbinoFerret 20:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
MEDRS applies to all medical claims on all Misplaced Pages pages, i.e. "that no proof of serious health risks has emerged". Yobol (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Thats obvious because everything is "unknown" and its making that claim as it directly applies to laws not that there is a health benefit, or any health matter. Secondly, there was no finding in the DRN that McNiel was not MEDRS, but that there was no consensus for adding it. So it stayed out. This is the reveres, you are trying to remove long added claims, you need consensus to remove it. You dont have consensus to do that. AlbinoFerret 20:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I regret I did not know that MEDRS applies to all medical claims; I had earlier allowed McNeil on this page not knowing that. I apologize. Cloudjpk (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Even if you did not know, there is no consensus for removing the claim, I think McNiel is MEDRS. In cases of non consensus of long standing material, the material remains per WP:NOCONSENSUS restore the edit, its been there almost two months. AlbinoFerret 22:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
You have not shown McNiel is MEDRS. But you previously stated it is a primary source. The part "no proof of serious health risks has emerged" is contradicting recent MEDRS reviews and is making a medical claim. The source is also not a secondary source. QuackGuru (talk) 22:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
This is not a medical article, the sources must adhere to WP:RS. And that is that. "No proof of serious health risk" is even correct per every other sources that exists - so i'm curious as to what you are harping on about. --Kim D. Petersen 22:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC) And btw. a peer-reviewed paper is WP:SECONDARY in all areas of wikipedia except apparently for the medical arena.
Classic QG, twisting what was said. I didnt say it was one, but that a source could be a primary source, because this isnt a medical page. What review has found serious health claims? None. its all "Unknown" AlbinoFerret 22:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
No evidence is needed to show that these are reviews, since reviews are not required. What is required is that the sources adhere to WP:RS, which they do. This is not a medical article, but one about policy. --Kim D. Petersen 22:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
The question of consensus on McNeil has been asked and answered Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_13#McNeill_DRN_discussion_resolved.2C_no_consensus_to_include Cloudjpk (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Different context and different article. Here it is about policy, and not medicine. --Kim D. Petersen 22:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Yobol: the recent edit asserts MEDRS doesn't apply on this page; please clarify. Thanks! Cloudjpk (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
The consensus of the DRN was that McNiel would not be added to Electronic cigarette because of no consensus, this page was not part of E-cig at the time. It wasnt on the page already, so it wasnt added. This is a different page with a different situation. The claim has been here for about two months, if there is no consensus for its removal, per WP:NOCONSENSUS it remains, that WP policy. AlbinoFerret 22:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
The discussion about a different article and another context is irrelevant here per Misplaced Pages:Identifying_reliable_sources#Context_matters. This is an article about policy and the politics of e-cigarettes and the sources are compliant with WP:V and WP:RS. In addition, the issue had been discussed previously and consensus reached. Edits to this particular statement cannot be made without an attempt to reach a different consensus per WP:NOCONSENSUS. Mihaister (talk) 23:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

On the use of McNeill here

Per previous discussions there's not a consensus to use McNeill as a WP:MEDRS-compliant source for health claims, so I've removed the health claims attributed to McNeill from the article. However McNeill's CV does show her as an authority on tobacco policy so I've left her in there for that purpose, and recharacterized her and Bates from health to policy experts. This avoids using the contentious source for medical claims and uses the individuals for their areas of strength in a way directly relevant to topic of this article, the legal status. I hope this resolves the dispute. Zad68 01:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thats not a bad rephrasing Zad. AlbinoFerret 01:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Looks good, Zad68. Mihaister (talk) 07:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Ban/Medical device POV in the lede.

Considering that most countries do not ban e-cigarettes, or consider them medical devices, the lede is expressing significant WP:UNDUE focus on the view that they should be banned or considered as such. --Kim D. Petersen 22:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, its like adding that the world is flat to geography articles. While some people may believe that, and it can be sourced, it shouldnt be in the article. Adding that they are medical devices to this one in a prominent place is against WP:WEIGHT AlbinoFerret 22:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Fork United States section

The section on the United States covers 50 states in detail. This is enough content to be its own article and could be forked then summarized here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Mixed feelings. On the one hand: Yes, if the US section should be handled like it currently is, then it should be forked. On the other hand, i find it rather excessive/undue that under each state we mention towns/villages/hamlets/suburban local rules. (we mention local rules in such where the population <10,000). --Kim D. Petersen 13:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Categories: