That certainly is what a lot of vapers think... those in the 98% that is.
I'm battling some ANTZ from Cali with edits to the wikipedia page on e-cigs
- Thread starter DrMA
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Very glad to hear that, although it should be expected from people who can tell what's real and what's not.
Unfortunately, the media still thinks he is some kind of authority and expert.
And it's really the media that matters the most.
I long for the day that he gets a high-profile discrediting.
I'll throw a freaking party when that day comes.
Slowly but surely, I think his name is becoming damaged goods even among the general media. If you look at the comments on any news story wherein he's quoted or his research referenced, you'll see people like ourselves calling him out for the junk scientist/pathological liar he is. You can bet other writers see that stuff when they're researching their pieces, and many of them will think twice about using a source whose credibility is going to be assailed by large numbers of readers.
And yet, it was glANTZ, the lunatic pathological liar failed mechanical engineer, who was commissioned by W.H.O. to write their own review of e-cigs. And also glANTZ who received as recently as 2013 millions of taxpayer dollars to manufacture junk on behalf of FDA. I don't see much marginalization or recognition that he's a quack from any authoritative figure.
And yet, it was glANTZ, the lunatic pathological liar failed mechanical engineer, who was commissioned by W.H.O. to write their own review of e-cigs. And also glANTZ who received as recently as 2013 millions of taxpayer dollars to manufacture junk on behalf of FDA. I don't see much marginalization or recognition that he's a quack from any authoritative figure.
Paul Ehrlich should be totally disregarded even ridiculed, but he's still their hero
The more wrong they are, the higher esteem they're held.
And yet, it was glANTZ, the lunatic pathological liar failed mechanical engineer, who was commissioned by W.H.O. to write their own review of e-cigs. And also glANTZ who received as recently as 2013 millions of taxpayer dollars to manufacture junk on behalf of FDA. I don't see much marginalization or recognition that he's a quack from any authoritative figure.
His marginalization is ultimately going to be a function of the impunity he thinks he enjoys. The ivory tower in which he resides has grown so tall, and his ego so outsized along with it, that he thinks he can just make stuff up and have it be accepted unquestioningly by everyone. This, eventually, will be his undoing.
And yet, it was glANTZ, the lunatic pathological liar failed mechanical engineer, who was commissioned by W.H.O. to write their own review of e-cigs. And also glANTZ who received as recently as 2013 millions of taxpayer dollars to manufacture junk on behalf of FDA. I don't see much marginalization or recognition that he's a quack from any authoritative figure.
Could this be a large mistake on their part, if they have him write the reports and no one is willing to publish press releases with his name on them it might be good.
Paul Ehrlich should be totally disregarded even ridiculed, but he's still their hero
I still think it would be fun (and helpful to the cause) to do a 'yes men' type job on ANTZ and the willing media. Send one of us there as 'expert tobacco control spokesperson' who parrots Glantz but takes things about 8 times further than Glantz ever has, if that's possible. Become overly obnoxious on points (obnoxious from vaper's perspective) all in an attempt to see how willing the media / general public would listen to such ideas and not be critical.
If you can't beat them (in the media) then join them in the media and beat them at their own game.
"According to Wikipedia, eCigs are the #1 cause of Ebola. What's that you say? Wikipedia doesn't say this? Well, time to update Wikipedia with some, ahem, facts."
A lot has happened since my last post here. Nothing good, I'm afraid...
However, this new development is sinking to a new low: a massive battle has been launched by ANTZ in an attempt to paint all pro-vaping advocates as BT astroturf. Multiple discussions are being opened by the ANTZ in an attempt to muster support from as many pharmafia shills as can be found trolling Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.ph...cigarette&oldid=636813256#Proposed_compromise
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.ph...id=636816158#Sourcing_on_Electronic_cigarette
However, this new development is sinking to a new low: a massive battle has been launched by ANTZ in an attempt to paint all pro-vaping advocates as BT astroturf. Multiple discussions are being opened by the ANTZ in an attempt to muster support from as many pharmafia shills as can be found trolling Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.ph...cigarette&oldid=636813256#Proposed_compromise
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.ph...id=636816158#Sourcing_on_Electronic_cigarette
I admire you for your ability to have an ongoing rational debate with a bunch of educated .......
I would have lost my cool a long, long time ago.
Thank you for your efforts.
I admire you for your ability to have an ongoing rational debate with a bunch of educated .......
I would have lost my cool a long, long time ago.
Thank you for your efforts.
Hang in there DrMA! I second DC2's comments, please don't give up - it is literally of "life or death" importance for smokers who try to research the vaping alternative to receive accurate, unbiased, scientific and evidence based information. Wiki is the first place many people go. You are doing a public service by continuing to try and counteract the misinformation put forward by ANTZ.
Thanks guys, I appreciate the encouragement. I openly admit this is a loosing battle, but I fight it nonetheless. Unfortunately, so long as the medical establishment maintains its prejudiced anti-vaping position there's little chance the Wiki article can be any more positive. But I do try to make sure that the ethical and accurate research coming out makes it to the article, rather than being ignored, suppressed, or replaced by ANTZ FUD.
The "talk" section is longer than the article on eCigs. I've seen other talk pages on Wikipedia, but this is really ridiculous. I clicked on the "tobacco smoking" page for Wikipedia, then 'talk' and it is only 100 times shorter than the talk on eCigs.
I'd like to see a Wikipedia article written about the talk page on eCigs. Hmm, maybe that's asking for too much. Until that happens, I'm still going to say the thing that makes the most sense is to have one page (article) for eCigs, and another for "controversy regarding eCigs" as it is clearly a controversial topic with national/international politics at work.
Not sure why I continue to make that plea here, but will note here that the ridiculous talk page that does exist for eCigs makes me really not want to give money to Wikipedia, whereas I really have never (ever) had that feeling when reading any other page, on any other topic, on Wikipedia.
For the heck of it, I clicked on the article pages for "evolution" and "global warming" and both of those 'talk' pages are less than the eCig one. I would say my assessment of 'ridiculous' is spot on.
^^ Wrote this up yesterday and had trouble posting it.
In light of other comments in this thread, I do think you, DrMA ought to continue fighting the good fight.
I'd like to see a Wikipedia article written about the talk page on eCigs. Hmm, maybe that's asking for too much. Until that happens, I'm still going to say the thing that makes the most sense is to have one page (article) for eCigs, and another for "controversy regarding eCigs" as it is clearly a controversial topic with national/international politics at work.
Not sure why I continue to make that plea here, but will note here that the ridiculous talk page that does exist for eCigs makes me really not want to give money to Wikipedia, whereas I really have never (ever) had that feeling when reading any other page, on any other topic, on Wikipedia.
For the heck of it, I clicked on the article pages for "evolution" and "global warming" and both of those 'talk' pages are less than the eCig one. I would say my assessment of 'ridiculous' is spot on.
^^ Wrote this up yesterday and had trouble posting it.
In light of other comments in this thread, I do think you, DrMA ought to continue fighting the good fight.
Well.... Today was the day that the article got unlocked since october because of conflicts.... a pretty busy day on the talk page of the article..... the article might get locked again.
Entertaining stuff folks
Check it out here
Entertaining stuff folks
Check it out here
Last edited:
Decided today to write to the "contact us" version of Wikipedia to make my plea for a split of the article page, based on how utterly ridiculous the talk page is. Find me another talk page on Wikipedia that is this long. When the most contentious topics on the planet don't have a talk page that is as long as one on eCigs, you know something is not right in Wiki land.
Hummm.. What?
Im not sure I understand what you are talking about.
The vast majority of talk pages on wikipedia are larger than the articles, that's how articles are written on wikipedia. Just take a random article like "Jesus", you'll see that the talk page is 10 times bigger than the ecig one.... I do agree that the ecig article has a huge talk page for such a new invention, but at the same time... That's why it has a huge talk page.
In fact the talk page of ecigs is orders of magnitudes larger than what you think it is. If you look closely, you will notice the archives of previous discussions I believe that there is 20 of them.
And... What was that about contacting wikipedia? If you have an issue with an article, the place to settle the score is on the talk page, not thru the contact us link. Wikipedia does not write articles.... We do.
Last edited:
It's not surprising that the talk page of tobacco smoking is shorter than e CIG... It is generally accepted that tobacco smoke is bad for you, whereas ecig is a highly controversial topic. With passionate people on both sides of the argument.
That's not true... As more and more reliable sources are made available, the article will slowly shift our way. But keep going, I'm right in there with you.
Honestly, didn't notice the archive links. That does change things for what I was getting at.
Yet, still think there ought to be another page for electronic cigarettes that deals with controversy as that is present on the article page. The introductory paragraphs of eCig article are not what I see on other article pages on Wikipedia.
Almost everything after: "The benefits and risks of electronic cigarette use are uncertain" is representative of the controversy either in society or found on the talk page.
On the 'Jesus' page, there isn't language in the lede that shows up as maybe or likely. I'm guessing on most other controversial topics it isn't written this way. A word search on "may" doesn't appear in the 'Jesus' lede, but appears 4 times in one on eCigs. Example, "Electronic cigarettes may carry a risk of addiction in those who do not already smoke" has very little to do with WHAT an electronic cigarette is, and everything to do with controversy surrounding eCigs. On the Global Warming article page, the word 'may' never shows up in the lede. Yet, Global Warming topic does have it's own "Global Warming Controversy" article page because the whole "maybe" aspect does come up in that debate often but isn't (apparently) seen as necessary on the main article page.
So, while I now realize I was mistaken on the ridiculous length of the talk page, I do not feel I am mistaken about the controversy from the talk page spilling onto the article page and is not found on some other pages (at least in their ledes). Therefore, my suggestion that a split occur and that sort of language be removed from the main article page is warranted, I think. And if people on the talk page make that decision, then great. The sooner, the better. But, I thought to try Wikipedia 'contact us' first as I'm not participant on the talk page nor care to be because it is obvious that two (or more) agendas are butting heads and settling very little, so far. Am glad to provide the info that precedes the 'contact us' to explain why I chose to go that route as I do think it is warranted to try that when one is not a participant on the talk page.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
